I will now call to order this Tuesday, March 17th, 2026 meeting of the City of Mountain Views Parks and Recreation Commission and Urban Forestry Board.

Allison, can you please conduct the local?

Commissioner Brian.

Here Sylvester here, Mitchner, Davis, here, and Summer.

Here.

First ask if there's any public comment on those minutes.

Nothing online.

Seeing none.

Do we have a motion?

From the commission.

So moved.

Approved.

Okay.

Moved and seconded.

Commissioner Bryant.

Yes.

Celeste.

Yes.

Mitchner.

Yes.

Davis.

Yes.

Summer.

I'll abstain since I was not present at the meeting.

Sorry.

Carries 4.0.

Moving to item four, oral communications from the public.

This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any matter not on the agenda.

Speakers are limited to three minutes, and state law prohibits the commission from acting on non-agenda items.

If anyone here would like to provide public comment, please fill out a blue card.

And for those online, please use the raise hand feature, and Alison Flynn will recognize you.

So let's start with people in the room.

Is there anybody who has public comment on non-agenda items?

If you can give us a blue card at your convenience and okay, if you could just state your name, that'll be sure.

My name is Bob Rich, R I C H.

I live in Los Altos with my wife, two children and my 100 pound 16 month-old black Labrador puppy.

I'm one of 200 people probably that walk our dogs off leash in the attics.

And we're very concerned about the foxtails.

I'm not sure everyone appreciates here how dangerous they are to the animals, but they're almost like biological daggers.

They pierce the dogs.

I see some nodding.

They pierce the dog's eyes, ears, nose, and they do just stop because they're barbed, they continue to work their way into the dog's flesh because if the dog moves and its muscles, it requires surgery.

It can kill the dogs.

It's so bad that all the people I know are gonna stop walking our dogs now that they begin cutting.

And now the foxtails are on the ground and the dogs will run through them.

It's too dangerous.

And so I spoke at the city council meeting a couple weeks ago, and I said, let's try to cut the field earlier when the foxtails are still soft and not hardened, but more importantly, to pick up the debris which lays on the ground because once it's on the ground and the dogs run through it, it's going to get in them under pause and be very dangerous.

It's an off-leash place until 10 o'clock in the morning, and 200 of us go there, but we won't for six months.

I don't know if he's here today.

Hi, Tim.

Wrote me a very nice uh letter, and I'd very appreciate that.

But there are things that I disagree with, uh Tim.

Um you said that you move the mowing schedule sooner, and that's really good.

But it needs to happen, I think, first part of March when the seas are still soft and they haven't heard.

You said in your in the email to me that it's a seasonal condition in open spaces during spring.

As I wrote back to you, it's not just the spring that this is dangerous, it's dangerous through the summer and through the fall.

We won't bring our dogs there till the fall.

That's how bad it is.

That's how dangerous it is for the dogs.

You mentioned that you want the the fox tails and the rest of the stuff to decompose naturally to support the local ecosystem, but you don't have an ecosystem there, it's infiltrated with an invasive dominated species, and by letting the debris lay on the ground, it's just going to cause those seeds to grow and infest even more next year.

So it sounds good to bring to bring the nutrients back to the soil, but it's it's going to make it worse.

Um you said pet owners are encouraged to avoid walking pets are in areas where the foxtails aren't located, but they're all throughout the park.

So in the last 10 seconds I have, I would ask, because I have a stop watching, I would ask that we investigate how much it would cost to remove them.

I'd ask to investigate, would it even help to remove them?

Would there be so many on the ground that it wouldn't even matter?

And maybe we hire an agricultural specialist to tell us that if we did remove the biomass, how would that affect foxtails next year?

Would it actually clean them up and reduce them and allow wildflowers to grow another non-invasive species to be there?

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments and thank you for coming.

Go ahead.

Just can you um tell me the location?

The off leash location here.

Yes, it's the Mountain View Addicts.

Okay, thank you.

I should if I didn't say it, I apologize.

You might have said it.

Thanks.

Thank you too.

Good afternoon, evening.

Um Shani Kleinhouse representing it.

So I can have only bird alliance.

I always want to say all the bottom line.

I remember that we change the name.

It kind of messes me up.

But anyway, I'm here to talk to you again about borrowing owls.

I know the city, uh, as far as I know, it may have changed, and I would love to change the city still doesn't have a biologist and employs uh consultants to take care of the borrowing ours at uh shoreline.

Uh, there is a boring out preservation plan that uh Commissioner Bryant was part of creating, which actually says there'll be a staff person to take care of the owls and uh the biodiversity uh shoreline.

But there uh but there are consultants and consultants mostly would not really create the conditions to increase the population, they probably just make sure that you know that everything is done within the uh permit requirements, etc.

But what we saw this year in the last breeding season was pretty amazing.

Areas that were managed for the borrowing owls, which have been uh sponsored by the habitat agency in near Morgan Hill and Gilroy had great success this year.

They had more than 200 fledglings, whereas in Mountain View, there was maybe one pair, and maybe there are some offsprings, there's no remonitoring anymore, there's no banding anymore, and there is no real population anymore.

The year before the biologists left, there were 11 pairs, which is what was the aspiration of the borrowing oil preservation plan.

So I would implore you get the biologists and start taking care of recovering that population.

This is a species that is now under threatened on a candidate to be listed as endangered.

They're beautiful, people love them.

Uh, and they're disappearing.

And Mountain View made a commitment, and right now I'm not sure how well this commitment is implemented.

So I wanted to bring it up again and ask you if there is a way to get the biologist again to take care of the owls.

And I want to say plus one on Cuesta.

I've never I've I go there with my dog too, and this is a personal thing, it doesn't have to do with other bond, but or bird alliance, but the crop of um weeds there this year is outstanding, and all of these are seventeen, and each one little plant, which they're so dense, we'll have a lot more next year.

So I'm not sure how to solve it, but Boeing early is probably a good idea, and I I'm not sure what to do with the thatch.

There'd be a lot of touch on the ground after they move.

Thank you.

Thank you, Shani.

Anyone else here has public comment?

Anyone online?

Nobody online.

Right.

I will close oral communications from the public.

And we'll move on to our larger item of the evening.

Um, the parks and recreation strategic plan, updated draft review and recommendation.

And just to highlight our order of um action tonight, uh, we'll first have a staff report, then we'll have some time for PRC questions, then it will be open time for public comment, and then it will come back to PRC for their comments and feedback.

And then uh at the end.

Um we will be taking a vote, and I'm sure that uh staff is probably hoping that we will forward a recommendation to council to adopt the street strategic plan.

So uh starting off, uh I we will go with our staff report and I will turn it over to Christine Crosby.

All right, thank you.

Good evening, commissioners.

Christine Crosby, Assistant Community Services Director.

Here with me tonight.

We have flu of folks because it takes a village to create a plan.

Um, but here with me tonight is assistant city manager Audrey Seymour, as well as assistant community services director, Brenda Sylvia, Parks and Open Space Manager Tim Youngburg, recreation manager Colin James, and then online tonight is our senior management analyst Lindsay Wong.

Also joining us virtually tonight is Neely Bott from Next Practice Partners, who is our consultant assisting with the plan.

Okay, so tonight we are presenting the updated draft of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan for your review.

As Chair Mitchler mentioned, following this review, staff is requesting that the commission forward a recommendation to City Council to adopt the plan.

The commission first reviewed the draft strategic plan on November 17th, where staff received helpful feedback that informed significant revisions to the plan.

An updated draft was then presented to City Council on January 27th during a study session where council provided additional direction on several key elements of the plan.

The updates you'll see tonight reflect feedback from both of those discussions.

So starting off with the PRC and public theme themes from November, following that draft, we incorporated the themes that you see on the screen as well as an attachment to the staff packet or agenda packet, excuse me.

Based on the input we received, we made targeted updates to better connect community priorities to the analysis and resulting action items.

We also elevated trees, biodiversity, and safe access as core themes.

Expanded planning area analysis to better reflect growth and equity, and improved organization and clarity around implementation funding and staffing.

The updated draft reflects that feedback and functions as a clearer and more actionable roadmap.

At the January study session, City Council gave positive feedback about the overall draft plan and provided direction on key elements that are noted on the screen as well as an attachment three.

Council direction included establishing a biodiversity goal and natural elements, refining the vision statement, and allocating trail corridor acreage by planning area to better align with the park access analysis.

They also asked staff to add an action item to expand learn to swim opportunities, explore partnerships with friends of type groups, and include a review of the city's POPA standards.

Based on council's feedback, the vision statement was refined to more reflect the community values that emerged throughout the planning process and the refined vision statement is displayed on the screen.

The update updated vision emphasizes inclusion, resilience, and the role parks and recreation play in supporting physical and emotional well-being, while also highlighting stewardship of the natural environment.

This statement serves as a great guiding framework for the goals, strategies, and actions that are included within this plan.

Based on council's direction, the updated draft also includes a new goal focused on biodiversity, habitat protection, and natural elements within the parks and open space system.

To support this goal, staff developed two strategies that focus on strengthening ecological function in parks and trail corridors and integrating biodiversity stewardship into park planning design and long-term asset management.

Existing action items related to biodiversity, tree canopy, native planting, and habitat enhancements were reorganized under these strategies.

In addition to the new goal, council also provided direction to staff to allocate trail corridor acres to the planning areas.

Historically, all 52.17 acres of trail corridor land were assigned to the North Bay Shore planning area, even though those corridors extend across multiple parts of the city.

Based on council's direction, the acreage was reallocated to the planning areas that the trail corridors actually traverse, with 34 approximately 34 acres now distributed across five planning areas, Rankstorf, Wisman, Steerland, Central, and Grant, with 18-ish acres remaining in the North Bay Shore planning area.

This change provided a more accurate picture of park access and trail access and shifts the focus of the plan from planning areas below 1.5 acres per 1000 to those below two acres per 1,000.

The table on the screen is table 18 that is within the plan.

It shows the updated park and trail level of service by planning area, reflecting the reallocation of trail corridor acreage.

I won't go through the entire table, but the key takeaway is highlighted in the red box, which identifies the six planning areas that currently fall below two acres per 1,000.

For additional context, the table also shows the citywide level of service with and without the North Bay Shore planning area, which illustrates how that planning area influences the overall acreage per 1,000 residents.

With the trail quarter acreage now allocated across planning areas, the parkland shortage calculation was updated in the latest draft.

To reach three acres per 1,000 residents at today's population and based on the updated planning area level of service, the plan now estimates a current shortage of 53.5 acres when you exclude the North Bay Shore planning area.

Using the planning level cost assumptions that are within the plan, this translates to an estimated shortfall of roughly $722 million for park acquisition, design, and construction at today's cost estimates.

The updated plan also includes two new action items bringing the total actions to 52.

The first focuses on continuing to expand learn to swim opportunities, building on the city's existing aquatic programs and identifying ways to increase access.

The second adds an action item focus on incorporating inclusive improvements in existing parks.

This would be guided by the city's Americans with Disabilities Act self-evaluation and transition plan and ensuring that upgrades and renovations to our existing parks provides access and usability for people of all abilities.

Council also provided direction on refinements to existing action items rather than creating entirely new ones.

Milestones were added to two action items to explore opportunities to work with friends of parks type volunteer groups, helping clarify how that concept could be evaluated and implemented.

In addition, the action item related to updating chapter 41 of the city code was expanded to include a review of the city's POPA standards as part of the broader policy update.

Following the commission's recommendation tonight, the plan will move into the ever so exciting stage of graphic design, where the document will be formatted and finalized for publication.

And the strategic plan is then scheduled to return to city council on May 26th for adoption.

With that, staff is recommending that the parks and recreation commission forward a recommendation to city council to adopt the parks and recreation strategic plan.

This concludes my presentation, and we're happy to answer any questions from the commission.

Thank you, Christine.

Do we have uh any commissioner questions?

Whatever order you guys want to go in.

There's 11.24 acres of acquired land that's undeveloped.

Is that included in the current 398 total acres of parkland?

Thank you for the question.

Um, so the the land that the city has acquired to develop into parks is not currently counted in that um that 300 something number.

When those parks do come online, the acreage associated with those sites will move into the different category of whether it's a mini park, um neighborhood park or community park and would increase the total acres.

So ostensibly reducing the 53 acre deficit by all the acres.

Yes.

And that occurred recently because the plan wasn't completed when we opened that one.

The plan was updated where we put Evelyn in the good side and took it out of the future side.

Yeah.

Counting.

Okay.

Yep.

So uh to uh piggyback that question.

So the land that the city owns that is not developed in parks, some of those like those little shoreline boulevard things under open space.

Correct, right?

Like those parks that the city owns the park land that's the aren't even in the table at all.

Correct.

They're um they're in a special little waiting area for us.

So when those do come online, we'll be moving them into the live park.

So there's some of them that are counted in the open space area, not counted in the Quimby number.

And those are the shoreline properties in which you mentioned.

Okay.

But would not include a significant service tables shows all the landing areas.

Right, the 11.42 acres that we've acquired that hasn't been developed yet, is not within the table.

Okay.

Another question.

So where does the document discuss the act?

So it is in reference to chapter 41.

Um, it is mentioned in the operational assessment as an area that the city would like to look at updating.

Um, it'll it is um it is page 126 is where it's it's perfect.

Oh sorry, that's where it's referenced.

Um, so the operational assessment, which is 5.2, um, does reference the chapter 41 parkland dedication fees in um in lieu thereof, um, and that is part of the the Quimby study um or sorry, the Quimby Act.

Um, in addition, the city is in the process of doing an impact based study, which is the Nexus study, um, which is also looking at the Quimby Act as well as other um fee mitigation act um to develop um potential new fees related to parkland.

I'm not to put you on the spot too much, but could you discuss what the Quimby Act requires of the city?

Um thank you for the question.

I am not the expert on that topic.

Um is Lindsay Wong able to jump online right hand.

All right, Lindsay to put you on the spot.

I'm sure it's fairly complex and um but it's is it fair to say that it relates to uh the city's ability to raise park mitigation?

Yes, and is it fair to say that it does not establish a required park stand?

Correct, okay, thank you.

Yeah, I'm gonna next year.

So would the Quimby Act be neutral on the issue of counting school space or not counting school space and cities parkland calculation?

Yes, I appreciate the question.

It is not one that I have the answer to at this moment, but we can look into it and follow up with the commission following tonight's meeting.

Thank you.

You'll have a look at anything.

Yes, um, a few questions about the Nexus study specifically.

What is the current date for its release?

That is a great question.

Do you think chase approximately uh before June?

Before the before the end of June.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um, and will that come to the PRC for review?

No, it's going to the Council Finance Committee and then to the council.

Um, and lastly, uh, will the strategic plan be revised in any way to reflect outcomes of that study?

Like, will there be calculations of how much money can be raised with different fee mechanisms and then apply it backward to the study to say, hey, we now have we think we can now have 100 million dollars, and this is how we could apply it.

That's a fairly good question.

Um so we anticipate that this plan will be adopted prior to the Nexus study um being um received and approved.

Um, there is an action item um within this plan that um is to incorporate the recommendations from the nexus study.

Um it's the same action item that also incorporates the review of the POPA standards, and we envision doing that in a phase approach where first we'll go with the Nexus study and the fee recommendations, and then we'll go a second time to look at chapter 41 with the looking at the POPA standards and any other um potential edits that need to be made.

Um great, thank you.

I'm just wondering what that output will look like and how specific will dollars be attached to specific actions because of that.

Ah, fair question.

Um, through the annual reporting is where we'll be able to share what the status update is on those action items.

Um, and the plan does call for um an update at the five year mark um as well as a more comprehensive update at the tenure mark, um, where we may be able to incorporate those things.

But the one thing I do appreciate about this document is that it is uh living action-oriented plan that we can um through our public dashboard and annual reporting be able to incorporate uh changes that come through that process.

Okay, thank you.

Um so the Questa Annex is that the causes open space at this point.

Yes, it does, and in fact, within the general plan, it is marked as um park land.

Does it go into the calculations?

Yes, it does, yeah.

So into the calculations for the Quimby Act, it goes.

All right.

Um, this is maybe you have the information I'm going to be asking about, and maybe just for another another time you look at numbers.

It would be interesting to not just look at acres per person for uh neighborhoods for planning areas, but the denser the planning areas on the whole, the less parkland they have.

And it would be interesting to have a number saying like 60% of the population of Mountain View actually lists in areas that are deficient in park line.

I assume you have all those numbers, but I I think it would be a metric that would be interesting because the planning areas that are that have the most parkland are actually the least dense areas.

So just counting planning areas doesn't quite reflect the information that counting residents summarizing the various um the the various neighborhoods that have uh the dollar coefficient parts.

Yeah.

Um in the in the QA that the PRC sent to staff, there was an answer about the conveyance tax and the amount of money that might not um be available.

When will that kind of feed into the calculations here?

Oh, the measure G funding.

Um so we will know in June through the annual budget process um how much has been received for the current fiscal year and how much has been allocated to parks and open space, um, which the resolution does state 30 to 35 percent of that will be allocated, which is really fantastic.

Um we are still learning more behind the scenes of um how measure G um will be available to us to be able to put into play for acquisition as well as design and construction.

Um, and so that hasn't come to fruition just yet.

Um, but we're looking forward to seeing the full dollar amount which we received as budget process.

So is it well Audrey?

Oh, go ahead.

No, I'm just wondering when can we use the money?

When will we know how to use it in the canvas?

Um kind of response to some themes that I'm hearing from you regarding the measure G funding and from Summer about the um the funding from the Nexus study.

Um that may or may not be immediately revised within the plan document itself, but that definitely um would be well addressed in uh a separate, more easily adaptable um funding um strategy document that can um keep track of these funding sources and how they're allocated, and that can be um communicated in a in a more frequent basis as we learn those things.

Uh, another thing that's being considered by the council is placing a um a bond measure on the ballot in November, and we won't know the results of that until that time either.

So that it's going to be rather fluid.

I know there's been a lot of community comment on the lack of specificity of exact dollar amounts and sources allocated to exact action items, which I don't believe is possible at this point in time, and maybe not um not even necessary as we use the plan as a living document, and we have the ability to have you know action items that um get updated um uh in real time careful wording, and now I'll try to um so at what point does council have a public for parks to save these objects that are in the search of the plan that have priorities, let's do that.

And here is extra money that has come in, and let's do it.

So as uh assistant director um Crosby mentioned that with the June budget adoptions, there will be information about the the amount received through measure G and the allocations to the different um use that were identified for those funds, um, and uh what um uh assistant director Crosby was also saying the precise mechanism for how those funds go from you know measure G general fund money into say a CIP project for a specific park have not been developed, but we we have those um processes in place through our capital improvement program, um, which is um adopted obviously at a specific time of the year, but is amended throughout the year as necessary to move money into capital projects.

Um and so it's going to it's there's not going to be a specific one point in time.

Um it's going to be more fluid than that.

Um, but this will be an ongoing priority for the department to be tracking those um sources of funds and matching them matching them against uh the actions in the plan um and the the opportunities for land acquisition as those um come up.

Thank you.

There's only questions.

Um so myself, I so I just a couple little um questions and a couple of actual follow-ups to keep um so I was the one who asked the question about uh um ahead of time about chapter 41 and POPA and and so I mean it sounds to me like the chapter 41 and the nexus stuff is gonna go directly to council um without maybe coming here, but but I'm sure on the POPA part, um and maybe it's too early to know, but it I'm I'm sure that this commission would love to be engaged on on that if if we if we have that opportunity on on the POPA yeah rules and guidelines because we did that did cycle through us last last time a number of years ago, I can't.

Correct.

In 2021 is when the ordinance was last updated to incorporate the POPA standards and the credit related to that.

Um and you are correct, we haven't had a moment to sit down and flash out what that process will be.

Um, but we appreciate hearing the commission's intent of wanting to be involved in that process.

And then also following up, I who's also the other one who uh who asked about the conveyance measure G um funds, and I appreciate you know, because the expectation it was that it was going to be nine million a year and roughly three million would and I guess the response that came back is you know we're not hitting the nine million so far this year, and maybe it's just the first year, and it's probably something that you don't know the timing when things are gonna sell.

But I I guess my big thing, which we've touched on a little bit, it was just we don't want to PRC doesn't want to lose sight of the the funds that should be earmarked for for parks, and I guess I had envisioned perhaps you know, there's a spreadsheet that we get from time to time that has all the funding that's available by planning area, and there's a there's a column on the far left that's unallocated because it's could be used, and I guess I just sort of envisioned the that money could appear there somehow, right?

And and and that so we can we can track it and see that it's that it's coming in, and there could be a row for measure D from 2026 and measure G from 2027.

And I don't know what the stipulations are on that on you know, if it has to be spent in a certain amount of time, but that was just one idea I had based on the documents that we received, but I'm sure that there's interest in tracking that somehow.

So no, I appreciate the the question comment um and the fact that you've kind of visualize what the spreadsheet could look like, very helpful.

Um, and we will um take that into consideration as we start building out these processes as well as tracking of the funding.

Yeah.

And then I guess my last one for now is I'd also asked a question about table 48.

You know, it's the table that has all the different parks that contribute acreage to the planning area total.

And I guess for me, I would love to be able to see Questa, you know, quest of the Questa line includes the park and the annex bundled together, and I would love to see those broken apart, you know, just one after another, because I think those are very different types of space.

And I mean, if that's not possible, then if there could maybe be an asterisk down at the bottom that says, you know, of the quest total of 37 acres, you know, 12 point whatever it is is the annex or something like that, just because it that's a big that's a big number in the in that planning area, and um I think it's very different types of space.

Yeah, no, we appreciate that question.

Um, and we can certainly um look into um something like that or gonna make a footnote as you mentioned.

Um and just for clarity, um both um properties, which are all one, but questing annexes 12.67 acres, which still fits within the community park um classification as well as questa park proper, which is 25.14 acres, um, which is obviously a larger one.

So yeah, thank you.

Are there any other commissioner questions before we move on to public comments?

No, similar thinking about it maybe all right.

The chair has discretion of limiting the time if if uh there's a lot of speakers, but I I think this is a big one, and and uh I see 19 people online, and some of them are probably staff people.

Um so I'm gonna allow them for the full three minutes.

Uh only four raised hands.

So it said only four raised hands.

Oh, at this point, yeah, yeah.

So anyway, I'm gonna go with the full the full amount time, and um we will start with the people in the room who would like to speak.

And uh if you could fill out a blue card if you haven't already, and um I'll I'll go with the the blue cards that I have first.

Um so uh Bill Lambert.

Now Alison will be running the clock, and I think she'll give you some kind of a warning.

Yeah, I'm gonna do a wave.

I'm not gonna actually that's a one minute.

Yeah.

Um Alice, I provided that.

Could you just I'm gonna talk over my slides?

People can read them.

Um, but could you just cycle through them maybe every 20 seconds?

I think there's only five slides and then one file.

Okay, my name is Bill Lambert.

Sorry, let me just pull it up real quick.

I don't want to start your sorry.

Right?

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh my name is Bill Lambert.

I'm a 24-year-old of 24 years.

I've lived in the Mono Loma neighborhood.

I am speaking on my behalf of myself as homeowner and uh resident of Mountain V.

Um, I participated in the you can start cycling through the slides.

I participated quite uh heavily at the very beginning of this uh project, but uh did not uh really uh I made uh contributions off and on.

But at the end here, I'm uh really disappointed about uh several things.

You know, the plan identifies a huge current park deficit, and as Mountain View grows under the laws established and laws that are um grows sort of to address the things like the housing element and SB 79, there's gonna be clearly be increasing uh need for park space.

The city actually has little control over quite a bit of mountain view because of these uh uh legislate uh legislative uh statutes.

Um to provide uh the park for the park space, we're gonna need a bond.

And the bond right now is as it's in this plan, it's really not stated how much we expect to get from a bond for how long, how money will be spent on park space, how how space will be identified, uh timeline for the process um and where parks would be and a staffing commitment.

Uh, there's also no really clear sort of time uh plans for contingencies and alternatives, and what I'm thinking about there as park uh access to school properties gets restricted.

How will we respond to that?

And there will be other contingencies.

Three acres per thousand residents sounds wonderful, but really that's a promise I don't think the city can really keep.

And I would rather see parking uh open space plan, you know, be more realistic and focus on what it can be accomplished and have real clear actionable plans to do that.

Um otherwise, I think, and this came up really early on in the process that uh the 2014 strategic plan was very aspirational and sounded wonderful, but very little actually got accomplished.

And I'm really afraid without a lot of specific specificity in this plan, the same thing will happen 10 years.

You could move to the last slide.

I just want to include the mnemonic, right?

So everybody remembers things.

So um Red Queen and Alice were running as fast as they could for a long, long time.

Um Alice got tired and asked for rest.

Red Queen put her up against a tree.

And Alice looked around, and through a great surprise, she said, Well, I I do believe we've been under this tree the whole time.

Everything is just as it was.

Of course it is, said the Queen.

What would you have it?

Well, in our country, said Alice, still panting a little, you generally get to somewhere else if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing.

A slow sort of country, said the Queen.

Now, here you see it takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place.

If you really want to get somewhere else, you must run twice as fast as that.

And I think in this case, we need to run even much faster to accomplish our goals.

But thank you very much.

Thank you, Bill.

Let's see, my other part that I have is uh Sheila Leederman.

Hi, my name is Sheila Lederman.

I'm a resident, a new resident of uh Mountain View.

Love it.

Thank you.

Um I just have one very brief um concern.

Um my understanding is that we have joint agreements with the school district regarding certain parks, and if the school districts have a year to give notice that the parks would be no longer longer available to residents.

Now that doesn't really give up much give much time to make up for that space in some communities, particularly Montalama, where I have grandchildren, my daughter and some will live, they wouldn't have a park.

They basically that's the only park they have.

They have a little space at Thaddeus, and that's about it.

Maybe that's it.

So I'm I'm just wondering how is this going to be addressed?

Because if you need to make up for that park space, you'll have certain communities that just won't have any park at all.

And to me, that's that's a big problem for the community and also personally.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the room who would like to speak?

Do you want to say we'll go?

Soldier first and Celia.

Um hi, I'm Sylvia Pamer.

Um, I live in Fountain View.

Um, and I'm a member of Green Spaces.

Um, we did send a joint letter and I'm not gonna reiterate all the points in there.

I think um there's some details in there that hopefully can be um kind of incorporated.

Um, we did really want to thank you for adding the biodiversity goals to the plan.

We saw those huge changes and we really appreciated it.

Um, we also appreciate the reassigning the trail spaces to actually better highlight the neighborhoods in most need of the green spaces, um, including areas like Monoloma that don't have access to those spaces.

Um at least easy access, I should say.

Um we hope that um the comments we made will help the city meet the stated biodiversity goals and create more natural parks for residents to connect with nature, as um Councilmember Hicks uh looked for.

Um I would additionally like to request a plan, uh kind of forgot about this when we said the letter, um, but for maintenance updates to better support the biodiversity.

For example, going toxin-free.

Um organic does not mean non-toxic, um, and leaving leaves under trees instead of removing them and then replacing them with mulch, which is very labor-intensive, um, so we can find ways to both support our staff to have um kind of less of that labor work, but also um support our pollinators and all of our biodiversity.

Um I would like to see a way to transition away from the port in place rubber as negative health impacts on children are being identified.

Um, I also noticed a few sort of hallucinations from the first draft of the study, um, mostly in section 7.4 around priorities.

Um, there's still a reference of shade structures being a high priority, um, but they can actually exacerbate heat issues by trapping heat.

So we'd rather trees.

Um, and um, there's some things like skate parks, still highly priority or like higher priority than I'd expect when residents ask for more paths, trees and nature.

Um, overall, I do look forward to ways for the city to collaborate with neighborhood groups to support their local park spaces.

And um, again, I appreciate many of the changes that have been made.

Thank you.

Thank you, Siri.

Any client has this on a cloud value board.

Alliance again, thank you.

Um see how biodiversity is now recognizing it or from here with the plant.

The what we see globally and even in our area is that species are disappearing.

But bird populations are in great decline, and their decline is accelerating.

We see huge losses, and the only way to start compensating for that is to plant natives everywhere we can.

Maybe, but most trees, as you well know by how many trees the city approves removing every uh year.

City trees are not there to last a hundred years.

We always change the cities and this trees don't last that long.

So while they're there, they need to provide all the benefits we can get from trees.

That's ecological benefits that the health benefits, uh, clean air, it's everything that we can get out of native vegetation and native trees.

And because so few people actually plant native trees, it's the city's responsibility.

And I think there's no other way to recover some of the biodiversity of this area.

Bugs are associated with specific plants from this area.

If we bring a throttle tolerant plant from Australia, it will not serve the biodiversity of this region.

So we have to look at that.

And I think that you made huge steps forward here.

Really appreciate it.

But I think we need to look at each park and say, what can we do?

Can we put three oaks here?

Can we add a little bit of vegetation here?

And kind of incrementally make the neighborhoods more ecologically viable.

And I actually recommend that you go to North Bay Shore and see where Google planted all the native plants for the monarchs.

And the monarchs are everywhere.

And why do people have to go only there to see them?

Why are they not all over the city?

Uh probably because we don't have milk, it's right here in front of this building.

So start thinking that every one of the parks needs to have some, and maybe we'll see butterflies again and children will see them and enjoy them and they'll see life around them, which is so precious.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Just go to the second slide.

Good evening.

I'm Albert James.

I live in the Steerwand planting area, and I've been there over 30 years, I guess.

Or close to it, I guess.

And uh yeah, just preamble.

Um this uh Nexus study, don't expect more funding.

It's gonna probably be about half or less because of the recent Supreme Court rules, but I won't get into that.

I want to talk about this point that I made to the council in January, and that is school fields are not parks.

Yeah, they're open space, but they don't have all the amenities that parks should be usually don't have shade, they don't have benches.

It's basically just an open field with you know overgrowing crab grass where people kids can play and run around, but for people that just want to sit someplace in the shade and read something, can't do that.

Now the study of course derates them for the hours that they're open, that's correct.

But if you're gonna count them as park space, I think you have to uh you know evaluate them as parks and and put that into the level of service that you're deciding each area.

Next slide, please.

Because in certain areas, the percentage of school land that's allocated parks is extremely high.

You know, how highlight those in the orange column, and one mine is one of those 69% of the park area is the adjusted school play play area, and it just so happens that those are really inequitably distributed across the city.

So if you take that in a conservative, so take out the schools, and you look at the lowest you know, parkland areas, which are those three in red, go to the next slide, which is the map.

And those areas are Thomson, Franksdorf, and Stirling.

You know, they're all in North Bay, north of you know central.

Uh Grant is also a little lower, it's only at 0.83, but we're only at 0.4, you know, when the ratio should be three.

And you know, look at me.

I'm not, you know, I'm I'm I'm envious that Mira Monte, they have a ratio of four, you know, 10 times the park area per person that we do.

And so the distribution is very unequal.

And if you don't highlight this, it's not gonna, you know, the the these areas are not gonna get the attention they deserve.

Next slide, please.

And the sterile planting area actually were this is for approved projects in this area, you know, the last two years and the coming like three or four years when these are built out, you know, they're adding 1400 units, housing units, which is translated to almost three thousand, or probably over three thousand people.

And so far, I think there's only maybe you know, there's gonna be a new park in our area on San Rafael, but it's only like you know, a couple acres, whereas there should be about nine acres coming in.

Where there should be about nine acres coming in.

And because of the Nexus study and Supreme Court ruling, we're only gonna get a small fraction of that nine acres of anything.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Albert.

Is there anyone else in the room who would like to speak before we go to the online?

Umison do we let us know who the first online speaker is.

Okay, we have Bruce England.

Hello, Bruce.

Hi everyone, how are you doing?

Okay, Bruce England.

I'm speaking on behalf of Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning.

And uh just want to praise uh staff and consultants working on this.

A lot of work I recognize, and it's great to see all the progress being made on it.

As always, I want to uh give general praise for pyramid parks and newer park for mountain view, and it's a real uh great example of that.

Um by the way, I do not see the clock, so guess I'm gonna have to depend on you to tell me if I run out of time.

There it is.

Okay.

So um I have nine quick comments from MBCSP and a question.

So um first is more park space than we have today and equ uh equitably distributed.

This is an important point for how things go forward.

Number two, consideration for park and open space solutions, not just in designated parks, such as by greening other spaces and leveraging use of POPAs, pasejos, and so on, and by maintaining natural landscape when we already have as much as possible.

Three attention to amenities such as restrooms, water fountains, benches, etc.

I've made the point many times about our restrooms closing at sundown.

That's that's nuts.

We really need to uh pay attention to how people are actually using our facilities, including those who aren't using the parks directly, like people walking and biking in the area.

Uh number four, coordination with other city plans, of course, such as biodiversity and urban forest plan and the active transportation plan.

Number five, uh please do not use artificial turf and no port in place uh rubber where it can be avoided.

Number six, adequate shade and uh primarily, if not exclusively from trees and other natural landscaping rather than from shape structures.

Number seven, preference for large evergreen trees strategically planted along the walkways and trails to provide shade where it's most useful, not only in parks.

And number nine is um, well, eight was about the restrooms again.

Number nine is please honor uh anticipated rules established in Mountain View by the dark sky ordinances are coming up and be sure corrections are made in all park spaces, not uh just the new.

The question is how will the city ensure that we have adequate park and open space given funding means are challenging uh and only becoming more so over time, as you know.

And then just quickly, um, I can forward these comments because we didn't do a letter, unfortunately, but I'll forward the comments to you all and to Christine, just so you don't have to try to uh remember or write them all down.

Okay, I think that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bruce.

Next we have Lada.

Hello, Lada.

Oh, uh hi.

Um Lata Adamic resident in Mountain View.

I would like to echo some of what Bruce Englund just said, which is that you know, when we think of parks and recreation, we shouldn't just think of uh recreation happening in parks.

I would argue if the goal is to increase people's um physical and mental well-being, I would say if they're going to walk or bike to a park, or even if they're just going to walk or bike, period, that the moment they step out of their house is when they start having the benefits of being outdoors and uh improving their fitness.

Therefore, it was a bit disappointing to me that the plan still has what I think is very inaccurate characterization of the bicycle network, saying that most parks, including Questa and Rankstorf, have great or you know, good access by bike, which anyone who has seen um the or I hear no, I saw them the hundreds of comments that people gave about uh Rangsdorf Street.

Um, and those who have done the staff city staff-led bike ride.

Um, you know, just crossing those train tracks, that is very hazardous.

On the other hand, the plan says that Cooper Park needs more bike lanes, but that's a residential area.

I talked to a parent in the area.

She said that her kids don't have any issues biking there.

They do have issues crossing Grant Road to get to Cuesta.

So I do think, I mean, this isn't the active transportation plan, but I think it should be accurate, nevertheless.

My second point is about take um paying attention to pollen when trees are planted.

The number one recommendation for pollen allergy sufferers, which is one in four people, is to stay indoors.

So, who is going to be enjoying the parks and recreation that is outdoors if they're stuck inside?

And the trees that we plant actually um really affect it.

So currently the pollen levels are really high, and it's primarily from trees.

I went to Safeway today and tried to get allergy medication for me, and the shelves were just empty.

Um, due to climate change, allergy season starts earlier, lasts longer, and is more intense.

The trees are releasing more pollen as temperatures get higher.

Not all trees produce pollen.

There are many species that we can, most species don't.

And there's no mention in the plan about tree selection to minimize pollen to allow people to enjoy the outdoors.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Lana.

Next, we have Robert.

Robert Cox.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we do.

Welcome.

Okay, Chair Mitchell, Vice Chair Summer, members of the PRC.

I'm Robert Cox, an active member of my old Mountain View Neighborhood Association.

I've been having some small group meetings with leaders of other neighborhoods in our city, and I know they're very interested in our parks and the potential of what this strategic plan can provide.

During the discussion, three points have consistently come up.

First one is they want to know how the new parks are going to be financed.

They've heard that some money will come for measure G, but that the city may vote a bond measure to support the creation of new parks, but they want to know the details before committing to support for a new bond measure.

They think that funding specifics and the resulting commitments should be reflected in the strategic plan.

And here I'll echo what Bill Lambert said earlier.

If you know where the money's coming from and you know how to use it when you get it, then you have accountability and results.

So whether it's actually in the plan or comes in a second separate document, that's something that we really believe needs to be worked out and put before the public.

Secondly, they're disappointed to learn that our house to get our housing element approved, our city had to commit to an average reduction of 20% of park and luffies for new development.

And they're wondering whether the Nexus study with the city and ducks will help recover some of that.

Third thing is that they would, those in particular live in the park deficient neighborhoods want a commitment that park and loofies collected for new developments in their neighborhoods will be spent on new parks in their neighborhoods.

I remember when I was on the EPC.

I mean, we used to just take this on a development by development um case.

And sometimes the staff would actually come in with a proposal that they wanted us to accept that didn't, you know, line up with that expectation.

So having that expectation set up front as the default would be a great thing.

Furthermore, I just want to echo personally what Bruce English said.

I want to support restrooms in our parks, um, not using artificial turf and having adequate real shade trees as shade in our parks.

So thanks for letting me share this feedback with you tonight.

I acknowledge that the PRC commissioners and staff are the experts in this area, and I'm continuing to listen to what you have to say tonight.

And thanks for the discussion up front on the financial aspects.

That's it.

You can have the rest of my time.

Thank you, Robert.

Good to have you join us tonight.

Next, we have Cliff.

Hi, this is Cliff Chambers, uh residents of uh Mountain View.

And uh first I want to thank staff.

I think they did an excellent job on addressing the city council comments.

I particularly like as others have mentioned the biodiversity elements.

I think people really want uh to experience nature throughout uh the community, and it and I think it was addressed really quite well.

I I want to spend the bulk of my time, although Robert Cox and Bill Lampert are already uh addressed this.

I think we're the the strategic plan is really has a missed opportunity and really letting the public know how the funding gap is going to be addressed, particularly in the short term with Measure G funding and the promise of a potential bond measure coming up.

The public wants to know what is going to be included in that.

Are you going to only include the near-term measures that are included?

Are you going to build additional park or two with uh funds that come available?

A strategic plan should really have specific milestones of how funding that is at least known, like measure G and potential like the bond measure, what it would go for.

If you're going to expect in a bond measure to get two-thirds vote, you need to have a robust public process to let people know what the funding is going to go towards.

And the strategic plan is a perfect place, at least from the parks perspective, to let people know how the funding will be used.

There's a lot of really good actions in the action plan.

But I think the public would really like to know in the next year if the funding is available, what is going to be accomplished, what is going to be funded.

And so I have a specific ask for you.

If the commission and in recommending the plan, I ask you that you ask staff to at least have a prioritized list of actions that would be included in funding that is available that we know about, and if particularly for the bond measure.

And if you could ask that as part of your recommendation, I think the public would be a lot happier, and I would think you would have a much better chance of passing the bond measure.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Cliff.

Okay, next we have Andrea or Andrea.

Okay.

Andrea.

Okay, we'll come back.

Um next we have Mary.

Mary Gardeau.

Excuse me, good evening.

Um, I have like cold.

Um I wanted to um thank um thanks staff for incorporating the new content regarding biodiversity.

I really think it's strengthens both this plan and also supports a biodiversity plan.

So I'm really happy to see that.

Um, I also want to thank um staff for allocating trail acreage to the applicable planning areas.

I think it gives a much more realistic view of which parts of the city are lacking in park amenities.

I it just really leaps out now.

Um, I think it's appropriate to count school fields as park space adjusted for available hours as staff has done with using a you know a fraction of the area.

Um, fields fill a very real need for use in our parks for all types of sports.

And um I also then wanted to ask, I'm not sure I was gonna make it in this plan, but I would want to propose this idea to make um tree uh native trees be the default choice for planting in our city parks.

Um so whenever there's a need for a new tree, um, give thought to native tree first.

And the reason I say this, um there's a concern by arborists, and they want to make sure they have lots of different species in the city to protect against um any single species being uh decimated by something like Dutch Elm Disease.

And um I understand that, but as previous speakers have said, um, you know, most of the trees in the city are not in the park, and most of the trees in the city are not native trees.

So the the place where City Mountain Community can really make um an impact, one of the places is in our parks.

Um, and so um even if every tree we new tree we planted in the parks was a native tree, we'd still have a very high degree of um species diversity across the city with all the other trees that exist.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mary.

Get better.

Um, next we have Rashmi.

Hello, Rashmi.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Great.

Okay, I'll get started.

Um hi everyone, and I want to start off by sincerely thanking the staff for their hard work on this plan with each new iteration.

They've made a genuine effort to incorporate feedback from the community, and the plan has greatly improved since last year with the PRC, especially in elevating the importance of green and natural spaces.

I'd like to offer some some suggestions that can build on this work, some that have already been mentioned by other speakers.

First off, I'd love to see the plan incorporate a suggestion made by City Council Member Allison Hicks to include examples of natural parks in the park design section.

Currently, the illustration for each park type shows a very similar design, one where man-made amenities such as playgrounds, courts, and grass fields are the main focus, and natural spaces are placed at the borders.

It would be more aligned with feedback from the public to see that image flipped where natural spaces are the main attraction in the park and man-made amenities are fewer and along the edges.

The building of a natural park can then be added as one of the actions of goal number one.

In a similar vein, the plan could benefit from addressing artificial turf and port in place rubber PIP surfaces, currently ubiquitous in Mountain View Parks.

Artificial turf and PIP are harmful to the environment in many ways.

They release microplastics, they create urban heat islands, and they eliminate all habitat.

It would be great to see if this plan could take some first steps towards building park space space that is not rely on PIP.

I suggest committing to a pilot project with a PIP free playground.

This could be a part of the natural design, natural park design I mentioned earlier.

I also want to reiterate the concern with the plan's focus on shade structures as opposed to trees as a priority amenity.

Certain sections of the plan are still written with a preference for shade structures because they can provide a quick solution for high use areas such as playgrounds and picnic tables.

However, feedback from the community surveys clearly indicates that trees are preferred over shade structures.

Relegating trees to areas away from where people gather is the opposite of what people are looking for when they come to the park.

The more trees can be integrated into the park infrastructure, the more they can be enjoyed by all park users.

Let's instead preserve existing heritage trees that have large canopies and only build shade structures where absolutely necessary.

Another question that I've brought up in the past, but have still not gotten clarity on is why skate parks are listed as a priority amenity in section 7.4 and in action 1.2.7 when the community feedback surveys indicated them as the lowest importance to Mountain View residents.

Adult fitness areas are also a low priority, but are included as a priority amenity in the plan.

On the other hand, community feedback surveys indicated that walking paths, trees, and benches are a top priority for Mountain View residents and are not yet included in Action 1.2.7.

This may sound nitpicky, but I want to ensure that we're not prioritizing our limited resources on amenities that won't be used in the future.

And lastly, I just want to kind of piggyback on what other folks have said about prioritizing native species whenever possible.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Rashmi.

Next, we have Jessica.

Hello, Jessica.

Hi there, can you hear me?

Yes.

Great.

Hi, this is Jessica Chohan, and I'm a resident of Mountain View.

I've been closely engaged at various stages of this parks planning process.

And I appreciate staff and the commission's time listening and discussing today.

There have been some great comments so far today.

So instead of sharing a list of grievances or additional asks, I just want to ask one question.

And when I ask this question, and before you offer further comments later today, I'd like you to take a moment and answer this question for yourself with a simple yes or no.

All right, here's the question.

If Mountain View adopts this plan as it's currently written, will we truly see significant, meaningful improvements in increasing our parks and open space in parts of our city that face the highest deficits?

I hope you have an answer to this question.

You know, we if if your internal answer is yes, that's wonderful.

It means the plan is a success and the job is nearly done.

If you're like me, if you feel a hesitation or a clear no, we have more work to do.

We know which neighborhoods are underserved.

We know where we're at risk to lose even more parkland.

A plan that only maintains the status quo or offers aspirational goals doesn't solve the equity gap in our park system.

We need more than just a document.

We need a roadmap for acquisition and development in the areas that most need it.

Even if it means taking difficult approaches and making difficult decisions that may not even be included in this document today.

If you disagree that this plan will move the needle, I hope you'll show that feedback today.

I urge you to include concrete recommendations on how we'll achieve real measurable progress to our park poor neighborhoods.

And you know, let's not pass the plan on until we're we're finished with a good one.

Let's pass a plan that actually builds a greener, healthier city for everyone.

So thank you.

Thank you, Jessica.

Next we have Paula.

Paula, hello.

Yes, hello, good evening.

Uh parks and recreation commission members.

Uh, my name is Halal Shawani.

Excuse me.

I'm a longtime resident of Mountain View.

Um I wanted to thank the staff for a great report.

Um, but I really do urge them to uh listen to the community very carefully.

There are a lot of great inputs tonight from the community, and I hope there's gonna be a lot of uh room uh for them to update the plan and reflect uh what we're voicing tonight and what we have uh voiced in the past as well.

The three acre per 1,000 resident is uh it sounds like a great goal.

And I know the city staff reports that it's probably not realistic.

Um, and for that reason, I think with the resources of the limited resources and the budget that they anticipate.

I think they really should focus on the areas that need more parks.

I think Mr.

Albert Jeans in his presentation showed clearly that without the schools and open fields and um all the other uh parks um in the city, the Sterling neighborhood was uh definitely lacking.

And I think there should be a much uh stronger focus on bringing the open space and parks to that area rather than doing an over-general thing for the entire city.

The second thing is uh the parks and recreation strategy plan should recognize that with all the huge developments that we have had throughout the city in the last 10 years or so, we have lost hundreds, hundreds of heritage mature trees.

And unfortunately, probably a good number of them uh were natives, oaks and and redwoods and the likes.

And that will definitely has it has impacted the biodiversity in our city significantly.

Um I think we heard from the Bird Alliance representative saying how um there are studies showing that the decline and in uh the owl species and others have definitely been shown in Mountain View.

Um, and and should that should come up uh strongly in the strategy.

So focusing on planting native trees in Mountain View is should be very, very high priority.

Um take advantage of all the open spaces in the existing parks and put more trees there.

That should not cost a whole lot of money.

I would love to see the city um designate the Questa Annex, 12 plus uh acres as a community urban forest.

That can bring a lot of benefit to the entire community and can really boost the biodiversity in our city.

And lastly, please take away the the plastics from our parks.

It's it's a great um uh hazard to us and to our children and the community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Holla.

Okay, next we have Henry Hello Emory.

You're muted, Henry.

Sorry, just testing my microphone.

Gotcha.

Great.

Uh good evening, commissioners.

Uh, I want to focus on the issue regarding the level of service and and how park acreage are being calculated and whether those calculations are are still internally consistent based on the plan that's being uh presented to the commissioners tonight.

And I also partially uh uh offered this in public comment before the city council uh previously on January 27th.

The plan clearly states that the city meets the three-acre per thousand resident uh goal uh citywide, but it also states that multiple planning areas currently fall below 1.5 acres per thousand, and that the city would need approximately 87 acres of additional parkland to meet the three-acre standard, so which is described as not feasible within the plan time frame.

Uh so the plan is doing two things at once.

It keeps the three-acre standard, but also moves away from using it as a binding requirement simultaneously, which is in effect a policy shift, and that shift is happening, and then the plan needs to clearly define what replaces it.

And right now, it does not.

Instead, the plan moved towards concepts like equitable access, planning area prior prioritization and targeted investments, while all valid concepts, they are not decision rules.

They don't tell us what must happen when planning area is below standard or what trade-offs are required.

And this becomes more concerning when we look at how acreage is being counted.

So the plan right now correctly is making some adjustments on school fields by reducing their contribution based on limited access hours, or examples such as the shoreline by removing areas that are not publicly accessible.

So staff clearly understands a key principle that not all acreage provides the same level of service, but the same principle is not being applied consistently.

So previous speakers referred and uh uh earlier comments refer to examples such as the Quest of Park Annex, that the annex is largely an undeveloped parcel, yet it is being counted as part of the quest of park in the acreage totals, and that creates a mismatch and not a consistent application of methodology.

So when acreage calculations directly affect level service equity mapping, planning area deficits and and ultimately funding and prioritization uh decisions, uh if land that is not yet feasible is counted as active park acreage, then the plan is overstating current uh service levels and understanding uh actual needs.

So my recommendation to the commission is that you get a staff clarification on whether all acreage count towards level of service, reflect the current public usability, not future potential, and explicitly state what replaces the three-acre per thousand goal if the goal is no longer operational, and to ensure that level of service methodology is applied consistently across all uh asset types, including undeveloped parcels.

Uh, without that clarification, the plan risks uh presenting a system that appears to meet uh standards only on paper while actual service levels still remain below those standards, especially at the neighborhood level.

Thank you.

Thank you, Henry.

Okay, next we have April.

Hello, April Webster.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Um, I want to briefly echo support for many of the values already mentioned, particularly around equity, usability, and really integrating parks into the broader urban environment.

Um I also want to focus on whether this plan is structured to actually deliver those outcomes.

I've seen this in other plans, um, including the biodiversity and urban forest plan.

Um, right now, like those that reads more as an aspirational framework without the without the fath that you need to make it implementation ready.

And that distinction really matters if it's meant to guide investment over the next 10 to 15 years.

And there are a few structural gaps I see, and I think others have mentioned this too.

And one, you know, that's a link between goals, funding, and delivery.

We need to put our money where um I guess where our mouth is.

Um, the plan acknowledges significant needs, especially in underserved areas, but it does not clearly identify funding sources or constraints on how those align with the priority project.

This makes it really difficult to understand what's actually achievable versus what's aspirational.

Um someone else mentioned prioritization is not enforceable.

It emphasizes values like equity, but there's no mechanism, like clear mechanism to make sure those resources actually flow to an um undeserved planning areas.

Um they've emphasize process over outcomes, um near-term actions and our studies and assessments.

But that's while those are important, they don't result in new parks under approved areas.

Um I also want to emphasize um the importance of expanding how we think about park space.

Um and I want us to start thinking about natural parks as well as another spoker, uh speaker mentioned, but um naturalized spaces, um, linear parks along streets, pocket parks, and green corridors, these can also be delivered and be part of that entire network of parks that we have in the city.

Um, and they're also critical for improving access in built-out areas.

Um they also play a role in addressing shade deserts, particularly along walking and biking routes, where a lack of tree candidate makes everyday travel uncomfortable, hostile, and unsafe in hot conditions.

Um mentioned, I think there should be much stronger emphasis on native species.

They're actually adapted to the environment, and a big concern among staff when planting trees is maintenance.

If we plant native, it helps uh address this issue.

Um, and finally, parks, they don't function in isolation.

Access depends on how people actually get to them.

If this plan isn't tightly integrated with active transportation, the active transportation plan, land use, et cetera, we risk creating spaces that exist but are like islands and aren't accessible to the people nearby.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, April.

Try Andrea again.

Andrea, we're going to take another shot.

Yeah, I'm here.

Thank you.

I my my microphone was not on.

My bad.

Um while I applaud the efforts and attention the city is putting towards producing a thorough and effective parks and recreation strategic plan and also urban forest and biodiversity plan.

I'm quite disappointed that comments and input I've provided have not shown up nor been incorporated in any way whatsoever in any of the updates for either plan.

My comments revolve around my desire to bring awareness to the harms of artificial turf and PIP poured in place rubber ice surfaces, having brought up how these surfaces do not meet any of the goals of your plans.

I was hoping the city might take some action whereby wording in the plan addresses my concerns and mentions that these unnatural surfaces should be excluded from any future projects, parks, athletic fields, playgrounds.

It would also be great if there was something noted in both of the plans that say that any renovations of properties that contain these products will replace them with healthier sustainable, non-toxic natural products and not more plastic.

Thank you.

Thank you, Andrew.

Okay.

And next we have Jim, who I believe is going to be representing.

Right, Jim Zayorski.

You're on, and it's my understanding that you'll have you can show us five people that uh you're representing, and you'll be given 10 minutes.

So if you could somehow show us the five people.

So Jim sent me some names prior.

So we have Zoe, Kellen, Marie.

Um Anita.

And gosh.

So we have everyone here, and they have not spoken.

They're they're in the speech.

Great.

So and then Jim also sent a presentation, so I'm just gonna pull that up.

Real quick.

Beautiful.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Can you hear me?

Yep, we can.

Thanks, Jim.

Very good.

Um Alison, you're gonna bring up my slide deck.

Uh yes, I am.

Okay, thank you.

And thank you all for for uh giving us this opportunity to speak.

We really appreciate it.

Uh next slide, please.

Next slide, please.

Sorry, it's lagging a little bit.

So basically, the um plan, the strategic plan go backwards a little bit, was approved in May of 2022.

Um at a time when population growth between the 2014 plan and the 2022 data was approved, had grown by 7,000 people, during which time we'd only added five acres of land.

We had 60 million dollars in the bank in reserve park acquisition fees, and we'd just been limited in the access to our park spaces by the Mount View Wismith School District, which is fencing all all parks, all schools, field spaces except Monoloma.

And that was only after public outcry.

Uh, we felt like we were losing a battle, we were falling uphill, and a lot of this angst has mostly been borne by five the five or six planning areas that lack park space, and we probably live in a different world than the people that have plenty of park space, and we do feel the pain of lack of biodiversity, but we also feel the pain that we do not have parks.

Next slide, please.

So when the current graph was proposed, there was to review existing conditions, assess parks, and conduct community engagement and develop goals.

Next slide, please.

Next patent as partners were retained.

They gathered community input and they correlated this input to the national norms and they developed the action plan, which was somewhat based upon bringing us up to state with national norms.

As many speakers have already said, we don't really care about national norms.

We and Mountain View, there's not the same national norm need for skate parks.

There's not the same national norm need for uh water structures.

There's not the same national norm need for fake turf or or for or for things like we like trees, we like to walk, we like biodiversity, and that in the initial draft was not reflected.

Next slide, please.

Next slide, please.

So Mount View is not like the nation.

Our land costs 10 million an acre.

So when they say, oh, well, this is what a five-acre park looks like, try finding a five-acre park in many of our planning areas.

Um, the climate here is one where we can play outside 12 months out of the year, and our planning zones are not the same.

We can't say, well, they can just go to shoreline.

If you lived over by Truman Street and you had to take your kid to shoreline to play, it's going to take you 40 minutes sometimes when Google is letting in.

Next slide, please.

So staff spent a lot of time, and I got to give them a lot of credit, adapting the national norms and the template provided by the consultant to our situation.

Next slide, please.

And they did a lot of good things.

However, the city's landscape since 2022 has shifted dramatically.

Housing element six and seven has added 11,000 home requirement for element six, and city council people I've talked to have said that there's going to be at least that many, maybe more required of us in housing element seven.

You multiply that number by 2.3.

And if you had 22,000 people that are new homes to be built at 2.3 person per home, you're talking about almost 50,000 people.

SB 79 is asking us to build at densities of 100 people per 100 units per acre where there was previously seven.

No, no, I'm not next slide.

Keep it keep me there, keep me there.

Backwards, please.

There's population uncertainty in the plan that says we might have 102,000 or we might have 148,000.

That's a difference of 40,000 people, 40,000 people at three acres per person.

That's 120 acres at 13 uh 13 million per acre.

We're talking about a billion and a half dollar difference within the framework of the plan.

We need to clarify that.

The Rankstorf um, the North of Datrip plan has fallen apart.

So most of the land that we're going to develop now is going to be in areas that don't have enough parks.

And the property acquisition reserve is almost gone.

Next slide, please.

So as a reality stages, the challenges we faced when the plan was initiated are not the ones we face today.

Next slide.

And the template derived in 2022 is not and cannot address the challenges despite staff's hard work addressing the challenges that 2026 presents.

Next slide.

So we've had an evolving drafts using the template of the consultant and modified heavily through the hard work of staff.

We had a first draft in November, a second draft in in January, and a third draft now.

We did a lot of good work on biodiversity.

We've eliminated national natural turf.

We've made biodiversity a priority.

We've had taken more emphasis on trees and shrubs, and that's all good.

Next slide, please.

And staff's work has produced good work.

We've analyzed the challenges in the planning areas and we separated requirements by planning area.

We've quantified the cost of developing new park space so we can look at the money we need, and we've identified resources that may be needed to do this.

We have not bought anywhere near the amount of land we should, even from 2022 to now.

The plan is using a number of 82,000 people.

If you go to the city's website, we have 88,000 people.

Along those lines, we should have bought 20 acres between now and when the plan was initiated.

We bought 1.5.

Next slide, please.

So what the plan hasn't addressed is what's our population estimated at?

We're not going to tell the state that we're not going to abide by the housing element, yet the plan seems to say we we're not.

And even if we are, where are we going to fund the park space required for our new nurses?

We're not going to say where's the money coming from for our new residents.

And if we don't have that money, how does that affect the equity?

And how does it affect the confidence of the people who live in areas with no parks that we're going to be able to address those issues?

And how are we going to pay for the planned growth?

If revenue is flattening and we don't have the park balance, are people really going to get park space, or is this just a mirage?

And then when or where do we expect SB 79 units to come online?

We know where the SB 79 areas are, and we know there's an areas that are for the most part park deficient.

Are we going to build a lot of space there?

And how are we going to pay for those units?

Next slide, please.

So can we acquire land at the right space?

Right now we're having trouble acquiring land at a rate of one acre per year.

We're going to have to acquire 10 times that.

And we do have not been able to do this.

We don't address that.

Are we going to deal with the growth that is mandated by the state, or are we going to address the equity issues that are in the park plan?

We can't right now do both until we have a clearer picture of the economics of our situation.

What are the R6 land costs going to be?

If we're going to zone land for 100 units per acre, the cost of that land is going to go up and the parts of park land is going to go up.

We haven't accounted for that.

And what's going to be the cost of this city if we don't do any of this?

If we just pretend to do something and we don't do it.

Even better.

We want lateral bike trails.

We want to have trees.

We want to have green spaces.

And if we don't have that, what is the cost of the residents of the city and the value of businesses coming here and our ability to enjoy this, not for just our kids or and our grandkids?

Next slide, please.

So the level of service may not be possible at three acres per uh thousand people.

But what is possible, and we need to define that.

The methodology that between that reduced from 87 acres to 53 acres is of little is of little consequence when we look at that the new buildings that were being proposed over the next 15 years, maybe two billion, and we don't have any way to pay for it.

Next slide, please.

I would advise the council, the the the commission to hold off on approving this until some of these questions are answered.

We're not going to know the answer to the uh nexus study and how much we can expect to be paid from developers and how much we can expect to be that we're going to have to pay out of a general fund until June.

We're not going to know about the bond measure until June.

We're not going to know about measure G until June.

And yet the commission is not going to hear from this again.

So if the commission is really going to consult on this, I would ask the city to come back in June, tell us the answer, and give us a plan that will give confidence to the citizens of the city that this is a city that we can be proud and feel good about living in for the next 15 years.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Jim.

And thanks for coordinating ahead of time.

Is there anybody else?

No more hands.

Nobody else online.

Is there anybody else in the room?

All right.

We will close public comment and we'll bring it back to the commission.

I just before we start, I just there were several comments about um questions about a the bond a bond measure.

And I just want to sort of clarify that with people.

I think had a little bit of experience with it as a school board member.

And I it's not surprising to me that the details of it haven't been developed yet.

Um my presumption, and I'm gonna kick this over to the to the other table, but that that's something if council decides that they want to do one, um, they will define um to some degree what what's gonna go into it um before it goes out to the to the um to the voters.

And there will be probably multiple city council meetings where residents can weigh in and if if they see that there's our uh bond measure potential and they want uh uh parks component in it, they should they'll have an opportunity to to speak um to city council about that.

Um you guys may have a better feel.

Um Chair Mitchner, your your experience with um splicing um measures on the ballot matches what the city's experience is, that it's a process um through polling in the community and uh assessment of uh different needs and the identification of specific projects within those um areas of need and what can be on the ballot is very limited in terms of the number of words, but that the city does um supplement that in the form of a resolution that identifies um more specific projects.

Um it would not um it would not be something that you would put into a strategic plan, which is a much longer living document.

And as I suggested before, we are not limited to just the strategic plan that we can have uh separate um financing tracking and uh identification of funding sources and um identification of specific priorities within those, you know, to allocate those funding sources to.

form of a resolution that identifies um more specific projects um it would not um it would not be something that you would put into a strategic plan which is a a much longer living document and as i suggested before we are not limited to just the strategic plan that we can have a separate um financing tracking and uh identification of funding sources and um identification of specific priorities within those you know to to allocate those funding sources to thank you okay um so we'll bring it back to to us and we can take a pass uh through with with comments and and things like that i know that um christine is feverishly taking notes of of things and and uh once we get through all our comments we can sort of see where we're at whether um we want to approve something or um or what we'll see but i i know that christine is is is writing down comments and she will probably incorporate them with other things that she's heard um from speakers and from the community and at other opportunities and uh that's that so uh anybody who would like to uh kick it off sure mr bright thank you um so um there were many comments from from the public that i agreed with and uh some interesting questions about what the strategic plan will do for us and uh i i have an answer and i'm going to address that um in in my comments um so so i'll start by saying that uh as i'm sure staff also feels this has been a very long process um and it was characterized to start with um by a period of of work by an a consultant from out of town and that was a long process and um and then i think several months of what i must have been a an amazing amount of work by our staff uh and and staff's work has has um has really brought the plan into much better alignment with the city's goals and with the city's character and i i congratulate staff on the hugely improved current draft and uh um so there are the the strategic plan has has tried to do so many things that in in the course of this entire process I have constantly been overwhelmed by well this part is fine but this part and how do these parts connect and what is this plan trying to address and I I will start by saying that when we when we started the process um I had expected for us the PRC the community to go through this process slowly bit by bit checking every part making sure that what we were seeing aligned and was consistent with what had come before and at this point though I have read the plan from the first page to the last page three times now possibly four I'm still overwhelming by there is so much there is so much stuff that is great there was so much stuff that still needs to be worked on and even to say that makes me and possibly even Christine want to run screaming into the darkness so let me try to uh to break break this down um so I think that the strategic plan like I said has has now come into much closer alignment with the biodiversity and urban forest plan and presents a much more recognizable picture of the parks open spaces and recreational facilities we've already have though there can be quibbles about the exact measurements but I think on the whole this is much closer than it used to be um and I think that the part of the strategic plan that dealt deals with the recreational programs I think that's I think that's great it's it's clear it it has a great analysis it shows what needs to happen it has metrics the part about the parks and open space is in my opinion in in a different position and the reason is that on the whole I believe residents are quite happy with the recreational offerings they want more they want a little more diversity they want a little more here a little more there they don't I haven't heard people asking for paradigm change and so what we have is great and and the action plan wholeheartedly for there's all kinds of things there that I'm I really want it to happen and are happening.

And the action plan wholeheartedly for there's all kinds of things there that I'm I really wanted to happen and are happening.

And a lot of we have we have we don't have that yet because a paradigm change is a really big thing, and uh and so I I feel that this part of the document is really a work in progress, and um so I have a whole list of small changes and edits that I think will bring us forward in the right direction, but the question that was asked by one of our residents will this strategic plan actually change things, and my worry is that as it is written now, not much will change because if our focus is on acquiring parkland, making major improvements to parks, major enhancements to parks, not much will have happened by the time in 10 or 15 years.

Okay, a lot of thinking needs to happen, and a lot of additional financial analysis needs to happen.

Um where are we going to be finding the money, but will tomorrow or next year bring real changes to how we experience our open spaces, to how we experience our neighborhood parks, to how we experience our streets, to how pleasant it is to do active transportation in town.

If we focus on large projects, it'll take like five, seven years to make changes to my local park, which has needed changes for many years.

So my main hope for tonight is that we ask staff to not only accept this plan, but also look at the strategy for making more immediate changes.

If one looks at the park, you can say, well, it'll cost five to seven million dollars to amend this park, enhance it, improve it, and um we can do two of those in five to seven years.

I'm kind of slightly making up the figures because I don't remember the details.

I haven't written down, and I'm sure you know it by heart.

Um instead, if we said we will make specific planting amendments to all the parks in town, it doesn't need to be five, seven million dollars per uh park, but it can happen tomorrow.

It can happen not tomorrow, it can happen immediately this year, the coming year, and not only the underserved neighborhoods and not only this neighborhood or that neighborhood, everyone in town can see differences, can see more trees, can have more shade, can have more pleasure, can see more birds, can walk more comfortably on the street.

Um, this is a way, this will be a way if if it's a PRC to agree with me to make people feel hurt and to get buy-in from our residents that we are trying to make every everyday life better.

Because even if we have the money to buy a park, even if we have five, seven million dollars to enhance the park, it'll take five, seven years, and then you buy the park, and then it'll take two, three years to build the park.

Uh wonderful.

I mean, we need to do it, but people won't change now, and I've I've heard that all the time from people.

We we need a better place to live right now, and those are smaller changes that are not really sexy big projects that we can then say, ah, we built a new park or we amended a new park.

So I would like to specifically ask council to look at opportunities for making immediate changes that are smaller than a complete redo of a park.

And that does not mean that we don't continue working on new parks because we need to do that, but it means that we make immediate changes.

And if you want, I can speak to them later, or I can continue now.

Whatever your player.

Okay.

So along along the lines of having been asked for like a uh I'm trying to figure out how to look at you because I'm talking, uh I'm talking to staff and read my notes at the same time.

It's not quite that easy.

Okay, do you need a difference?

I should be able to do it though.

Um so for example, in talking about the park design guidelines, it says off that it offers specific guidelines to maintain mountain views, parks, character usability, and longevity, but actually we we've been asked for paradigm shift, not necessarily to maintain the character, maintain the character per perhaps in a sense of our place, our neighborhood's place, our communities place, but we don't want to keep the parks the way they are.

We've heard loud and clear that people want something new, something different, something green, something that really builds community.

Um so I would just be worried about that.

Um the use of those of those words, and and and council member Hicks talked about the the examples of parks, and while it states clearly the documents that these are merely examples, they are the examples we offer, and um specifically the the graphics of possible park layout still show parking as a central as a central feature, active amenity areas are clearly marked, but nature areas are not called out.

Uh tree, the the path inside the park are lined with trees, but there is no natural area with trees, which is what people asked for, or the document calls out picnic tables as a community builder, but when I see in my mini park, the picnic tables are places where people sit alone, okay, where I see the community getting together is people bringing their chairs and making a circle and setting on those chairs together, and I've seen that in parks in other cities where you see it on Castro Street with the city's furniture.

People move the tables around, move the chairs around.

I guess there was a large group yesterday that I was looking at on Castro Street.

They got all the chairs together, there was a party, or it was the party, it was a group of parents talking, but it was a party, and that that's what creates community, not fixed picnic table.

And I think you know that that's part of the frustration of this plan.

I think you know that very well.

Staff knows very well how communities built, but we have a fairly antiquated model that we're working on, and you have been working very hard, you have not had time to deal with all the things that no longer really fit the picture of what we say we want.

So part of our work in progress.

Um another example, which which is very important to me, and many of our residents who spoke have mentioned that the planting guidelines and design and maintenance strategies talk about including native and drought tolerant species, but that's not what the biodiversity plan says.

The biodiversity plan talks about prioritizing locally native plants, and uh, for example, on page 11.

I try to make this easy.

One of the bullets says employ a drought tolerant, climate appropriate low maintenance plant bullet for almost all site plant materials.

And we could make an easy edit to that and uh and just add prioritize a locally native drought tolerant, climate appropriate low maintenance plant ballet.

And there you would respect what the community asks for, and it's a fits exactly with the biodiversity plan and is an easy edit.

So I hope I hope that you can find a way to do that.

In addition, I would very much like to see the number of canopy trees and locally native trees planted added as an annual metric.

We have like the percentage of uh percentage of percentage of biodiverse plantics added, but we have done over the years a really bad job of planting trees, and I think planting locally native canopy trees as a metric for us to see whether we're moving in the right direction, not only in the biodiversity plan, but in the strategic plan would be an important to add.

Um and I have in line with my my sense that is this is a um a work in progress, and I I think several commissioners agree with me on this.

I think this plan needs to come back to the PRC formally on a yearly schedule, planned ahead of time to discuss what steps have been taken, and to have room both for for staff who's obviously going to be working on this as there's staff is clearly saying that this will be a year of work to see how this is working.

That kind of information needs to be shared with the PRC and through the PRC with the community, so that we can talk about it together the way I had hoped the process would work, and only towards the tail end of the process.

Are we doing are we doing it the way I hoped we do?

Oh gosh.

So I would like to see called out once we do a motion, annual PRC meetings, and then of course the information going to going to council.

But I think a dashboard and go and look at the information if you're interested, is not what the community is looking for, certainly not what I'm looking for.

Commissioner Bryant, if I may, um, we are committing to returning to the PRC annually to provide a presentation to have a discussion of how the plan has progressed, what has been completed, what is on the horizon, what's next.

So that is part of the strategic plan already, um, as well as submitting a report or presentation to the city council following the PRC's annual reporting.

And I saw the wording and I wasn't completely clear.

Was it just a report or was it known to be expected to be a full meeting, a deep discussion and exchange of ideas?

Yes, we envisioned a meeting with the PRC, just as you described.

Good.

Yeah, good.

All right, those are my comments at this point.

Thank you, Renee.

Can I jump in about the trees real quick?

Um, currently we we had already done 40 trees just in the last few weeks.

There's 30 in the next two weeks, 120 in the next six weeks, and between March and June, the goal is to have 240 in the ground that staff is working on with uh the forestry department and the parks guys, where we're actually putting the trees in open spots in the parks, and then also irrigating as well, not just putting the tree in and helping that growth.

So giving the double protection of not only planting it, but adjusting our irrigation as well.

That's wonderful to hear.

But just the past says that we have not planted enough trees, and we currently we have the money from all the trees that Google took out.

And we also have a certain dependence on canopy.

And when a few I don't know, weeks, month ago, I told JP that there was money coming from the city to plant 300 trees.

He hadn't had he hadn't heard yet, and he was thrilled, but 300 trees is not going to get us to the deficit we have.

So that's why, and you know, if we're now moving in a different direction, I just couldn't be couldn't be happier to hear that.

But that's partly why I want that metric in there.

Because we we the past is a past, and you will have better technology to track the trees.

But since this is our state of go, I think we should have it there so we don't say, well, this year didn't work out, maybe next year.

This is now we are committed to doing this.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Who would like to join us?

Sandy, go ahead.

Thank you.

Um you could be loading that diagram I had.

First, I want to say I really appreciate all the community input we've received.

Um, the level engagement on this has been amazing.

And um, I really appreciate all the comments.

I hope that I think they they weren't just addressed at me, but I really appreciate hearing all that.

And further, I'd like to commend staff for the great progress that you made.

I know there was a lot of work to do since the last time, and we're we're moving along really nicely.

So I put up here this little diagram, and it relates to the park typologies in chapter six.

I don't think that the three categories, the community park, neighborhood park, mini park are serving us all that well anymore.

They kind of create blind spots in terms of what we already have at in our park um repertoire, and then in what we're hearing that the community wants in the park repertoire.

So to me, there's the there needs to be a new park model, or at least we need to articulate what is really actually happening, and there's a new number of dimensions in this.

There's the level of amenity in a park, there's a level of naturalness, uh, there's a size, and then there's a level of use intensity, and these all sort of fall along a continuum.

So I just did a five by three matrix with it, but you know, really it's much more subtle and um elaborate.

Um, but anyway, thinking about not just mountain view, but you know, for the urban design of your region, you know, they're gonna have regional open space that's going to tend to be very natural and passive.

The entity, the agency that fulfills that for our mountain view is the mid-peninsula regional open space district.

They don't do any kind of amenities in their park.

It's trails and natural areas.

So then you start to go in on that continuum from natural and passive towards slightly you know developed active and high amenity, they're again the spectrum, there's a mix.

Santa Clara County tends to fulfill that.

They have artery ranges and you know, oh OHV parks and and you know, variety of things, uh it's you know, Deer Hollow Farm, right?

That's the higher level of amenity that's on Rancho's San Antonio County Park that's managed by MinPenn, but it's a county park.

So then you get into the high amenity regional open space.

That again is the county, that's probably is your high your OHVs.

I'm not gonna elaborate on everything, but as you can see, there starts to be places where the county and the city overlap, and then where the city just has responsibility, and the city in my model that I'm presenting tends to be more on the developed active high amenity side of things.

However, with what we're hearing from the community, we also do need to see that we have some roles in community parks, neighborhood parks, and mini parks as a natural passive space.

If you want to try and figure out what to do with Questa Annex, you need to look at this, not our strategic plan.

It does not give you any kind of conceptual model to figure out how where it sits.

So I would argue that Quest to Annex really falls in the natural passive community park, and the city has some responsibility to deliver that, and and if you in my mind, once you categorize these things, you can start to understand better what goal you will meet.

And so in the natural passive category, you're going to be more drawn toward those biodiversity goals versus the amenity related goals because you're not intending to provide a high level of development, you're not going to have a high level of use intensity, and there's certainly not going to be a whole lot of amenities.

But it doesn't mean you just ignore it and let it sit there forever, not ever even do anything, including mowing the foxtails.

So in that case of something that falls in the community park natural passive box, you really would be focusing on the biodiversity goals and actually taking actions to enhance and improve the biodiversity, kind of the passive uses, you know, benches, invasive species control, right?

There'd be a management regime.

So I do kind of think this could create a way to decide what track you're following in terms of the goals, because goals make it sound like we're doing it all at once, but we're not.

We actually are actively making a choice of which column of given parks going to be in.

Got playground, gut golf courses, got restaurants, yet there's still some you know, obviously important designated uh wildlife protection areas.

So I'm gonna keep this up as they keep talking.

For me, it creates some structure to my mind, this type of model is missing from the plan because it doesn't help you focus on what to do in every particular place, and that would be really helpful.

Okay, so when I think about a plan or this is strategic plan, right?

I I can't not start with the goals.

I mean, clearly we need to have an assessment, but in my mind, the goals are the first thing that you need to see.

It needs to be right after the assessment because it drives everything.

And one of the things about the goals is this is not the top level city planning document.

This needs to sit under the general plan.

There's nothing talking about what the general plan's park requirements are.

It has to link.

And so I will admit that I had this thought 45 minutes ago, and so I didn't go get the general plan and look at what the park and rec chapter says.

But is there actually a general plan standard for parks?

So what we've got are a lot of really great goals that I completely agree with, but they are qualitative, they are not quantitative.

And one of the things that we've kind of talked about, but not really, is the level of service.

In fact, it's over in another chapter, it belongs in the goals chapter.

It is a level of service goal that we are describing there, and it belongs in the goals.

So then that actually raises the question of what is more important, the quantity or the quality, or do we actually want both?

And then I don't actually believe that the Quimby Act requires us to provide three per thousand, three acres per thousand residents on a planning area basis on a you know, different planning or the city.

I think that we did that in the old plan, but we get to question that now.

We really do, particularly.

I mean, I can't really say it any better than a lot of what the folks said in our public comment, particularly given the fact that it sort of looks unattainable, and particularly with the amount of development on the horizon.

You know, there's some planning areas that will probably not achieve this in this plan for this.

So I think we need to take take a little bit of a stand.

Do we want quality over quantity?

In my mind, we do because we I'm not about three acres per thousand, I'm about equitable green shaded parks and you know, joy and awe and everything that being out in outside brings you.

That three per thousand is meaningless when you look at it that way.

Um so I thought that the discussion in 5.4 level of service was good, and it kind of like danced around the question of whether we still want to do three per thousand on the study area basis, but it didn't come out and outright say we're doing this, and if we are, we need to understand why we're doing it.

I mean, it's just causing us trouble because we don't really confront what it means to be underserved.

It's a term that's thrown out, but we do need a definition.

Do we mean it doesn't mean three for thousand?

Or does it mean something else?

Like there's a great uh figure, figure 14 that shows the uh 10 minute walk when taking into account the circulation patterns, and I can like totally feel that because I remember when my son was little and we I was trying to go to a park, and you know, I live in Shoreline West, and at that time there was no Mariposa Park, and so I had to hoof it all the way over to Eagle with a little kid and a stroller, and it was a really long way to go.

I had a gross shoreline with a little toddler, you know.

That that's just you know, people understand that 10 minute walk in considering um circulation patterns, it really affects the usability and overall of experience of parks for many people, most importantly children.

So what do we want to do about that?

There's large parts of the city, although from that figure you can't tell whether residential or industrial or what that don't have that 10 minute walk.

Is that a priority to address plan's kind of silent about that?

So to me, that would be a way better standard for a planning area than three per 100 per thousand residents, that walkability frame.

Um this actually kind of relates.

So, you know, I brought up something that would build strategy around.

You could also build a strategy for addressing a funding gap or integrating biodiversity in existing parts, things like that.

But when I read the goal, so there's the goals, and then there's the bullets under them.

And the plan calls us strategies, but they aren't really strategies, they're objectives, they just help you achieve the goals, but they aren't telling you how because strategy is how.

How are we going to do this?

What actions are we going to take?

So now that doesn't mean that the overall package is not strategic because it actually kind of is.

When you start to look at the priorities in chapter seven, they are they're kind of unspoken strat, there's unspoken strategy in there.

Um, and in the um performance metrics in 8.6.7 and 8.7.2, they're kind of scattered.

And some of those, if you kind of put if you extracted out the essence, you you would have a strategy, and particularly the ones the performance metrics in um, I think it's yeah, eight eight point six point seven.

They're the um the their performance metrics and they're framed in terms of question, but if you extracted the strategy, I think you would have something really useful to help you focus on the things that are going to make the biggest difference, which is what I think Commissioner Bryant was talking about.

We had a speaker that was talking about that too, because doing it all all the time forever with the same number of staff.

I mean, it just it's not gonna happen.

Um so final plug is that if you are able to leave in some type of park model.

And to that end, I think we need to take a look at what we're gonna do with Quest Park Annex.

I know a lot of people love it the way it is, and I personally kind of go back and forth on that, but couldn't you?

So 12.7 acres, we were calling an acre as 10 million and twenty-seven million dollars of land value.

I would be all for putting it in that natural passive community park category, moving it and then improving it from a biodiversity and natural landscape perspective.

So in space of species reduction, native grass restoration, um, you know, bird boxes, consideration of the habitat value that the fallen oak branches, you know, diano branches provide benches, water for dogs, you know, actually improving it as a natural passive park, not just sort of kicking the can down the road.

Um thank you for considering all my kind of scattered comments, and I'm going to listen to everyone else now.

Thanks, Sandy.

So I think you're uh very compelling comments, which I disagree with.

Kennedy.

Um what it really makes me think of is I this exactly why I wish the PRC involvement, not just in two meeting reviews, but as we've requested very early on, kind of uh sustain constant involvement uh would have been really helpful.

Um I think the task before us tonight is you know, do we send a resolution to council advanced plan?

Are we gonna put the PRC stamp of okay on this?

And I I hear a tension between um a couple things.

Uh first of all, I want to go back and also um then the community involvement and input, which has really been helpful and educational for me, as well as the the thoughts of my fellow commissioners.

Um I think it's really great.

And I also think staff has done uh an amazing job in the couple of revisions um in pulling together what a couple meetings ago wasn't there and fan it's really much sharper and uh more helpful now.

But you know, what I see before us tonight is kind of the tension between um as Mr.

Zwarthy said, you know, delay the approval until we delineate you know these outstanding funding and implementation issues, or perhaps as Commissioner Bryan said, hey, let's accept the some of the limitations and at least make incremental important improvements.

So you know, stop do we go forward, you know.

I think that's kind of the the tension we have.

And um without going through kind of all the uh assessment and my likes and dislikes of the the plan and the narrative.

I would say kind of where I'm at is recognizing there's a number of deficiencies or ways that the plan can improve, but you know, of the five goals, there's two that really stand out as the look the much higher priority goals, and it it's the um you know, goals one and five, the uh the expanded enhanced safe equitable and convenient access to parks, space and trails, number one, number five, develop the funding sources.

And there's a couple ideas that came up tonight that I really liked.

Maybe we could work them together.

Uh Mr.

Lambert's idea of setting the alternative funding scenarios and what can be done under the different scenarios and call out specific actions that can be taken immediately per the different scenarios or immediately or with a clear understanding of the time frame.

And also assistant uh city manager Seymour talked about, you know, perhaps we could um append this, not put a funding, a new funding chapter in here, but a funding strategy document.

And I like that a lot.

And uh you know, the corporate world we do a waterfall chart that would show what the the different funding you know, financial increments are, where they come from, what their uh probabilities are and such.

So um, without going through the details of the plan, I I would in I'm hoping we go another pass here, is I'm ready to uh support a recommendation to council to move the plan forward, but um to do so with an attached funding strategy document that has alternative scenarios that that uh specify what can be done under each of those, and then get more specific and and committal about the the uh action items.

I'm gonna leave it there for now and do kind of more detail comments about the point.

I uh happy to try that further.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sylvester.

Uh well, first I'd like to express my gratitude to the staff, consultants, uh council.

Those of you who are on the PRC before me who did a lot of work over a long period of time on this, and of course, to the community who's contributed for for years with their feedback in all different forms, and especially to the number of people with very thoughtful comments here tonight and some very thought provoking questions.

Um, as a as a newer commissioner who hasn't been able to take a crack at the PR at the strategic plan before, I'm going to start with a few pretty specific things that are on my mind about the plan and then go to where my existential crisis is happening about the plan as a whole and the question here tonight posed by multiple speakers about what we should do moving forward.

So, first, um, sort of starting simply in building up.

Um, for our park enhancements and our updates, I think we really need to prioritize parks in the underserved areas first, regardless of their park score, um, unless significant safety issues exist.

Equity really matters, and where we're under serving populations, we need to do everything we can to bring those parks up to standard.

Um, like many people, I worry about overemphasizing school fields, even with our new calculation that better reflects their availability.

Given our parkland deficit, I don't think we can remove them or even discuss removing them for our current plan.

Um, but ideally, sometime in the future, we should be able to consider them a bonus or a buffer that we use until we develop our own.

There are just too many risks and limitations.

Um what our what many of our colleagues and I said during the biodiversity plan and what we're hearing tonight.

And many speakers have said this plan simply would work better if it was served with very specific actions, time frames, owners identified, uh, accountability measures in place, and really frankly, dollars attached, including what is presently funded, partially funded and needs funding, and possible or probable uh funding sources.

And that's why I brought up the Nexus study.

Um I really don't have a sense of where future funding could come from and how much is at risk because of the Supreme Court decision and for other reasons.

It's just really hard for me to agree to specific actions when I can't see timelines and owners and dollars.

Uh so that's where my existential crisis may start.

Um, but to some more specific things in the plan itself.

I have concerns about the trail allocation.

It probably doesn't matter because we wind up in a deficit no matter what.

Um, but even a couple of positive about the trail allocation, it makes it extremely clear that Thompson, Sterling, Sylvandale, and Renxdorf are dramatically underserved, even when they get portions of the trail allocated.

So I really think it highlights the need to prioritize parks and better improvements in these four areas.

Um however, for the the reality for our neighborhoods that have been sip of water time.

Um, like many of the speakers who mentioned allergies are severely bad this week.

So to the reality for the the neighborhoods that did see their park acreage increase because of the trail allocation.

In reality, nothing has changed for those people in their daily lives.

Their user experience with parks and rec has not changed at all.

Um I also question if an acre of trail land is really equivalent to an acre of park space or that a trail that's outside of a bigger park is really the same.

Um trails like Permanente Creek and Stevens Creek are equally as much transportation uh systems as they are recreation systems.

We have so many people that use them, especially during morning and afternoon hours for school and work commutes, um, which actually detract from their ability to be used by more casual recreation.

Um I am very happy that we're calling out biodiversity as an action, and I want to thank council for doing that and really focusing in on nature in our parks and how that parks and open space are both recreational and ecological, regardless of what their primary purpose is.

Um I really support that we spend more time focusing on parks that are natural and ecologically healthy.

Um, so I have some specific things, some of which actually mirrored what I talked about when we brought up the biodiversity plan.

We need more proactive use of reclaimed water for irrigation.

We absolutely need less toxic chemical use in all of our parks.

We do need to restrict artificial turf and artificial services, again, toxics and plastics when we don't need them.

We should focus on native and sustainable landscaping.

Hopefully focused on species that people agree to and are less prone to causing allergies as climate changes and allergies get worse.

We need to implement the dark sky ordinance because it's directly related to how people use parks, uh how we use lighting in our parks.

We really need to focus on more natural materials, especially including for shade.

So trees and other plantings that improve our habitat and improve shade and decrease our heat island effect are really, really important.

And I want to make sure that we don't just say, hey, our goal is biodiversity, but not spell out a little bit more specifically what that means.

And now this is where I get existential.

And I want to thank the Jessica and Jim who talked about what happens if we approve this plan or don't.

The plan that we have now in front of us focuses on catch catching us up to our acreage deficit, which is already over 50 acres for our 2020 population.

At the rate that we've been able to buy and develop parkland over the last decade, this really worries me.

And if we do as the plan discusses, it discusses a new population of up to 150k people in Mountain View by 2040, which is quite possible given the rate we are actually building units right now.

What are we going to do?

We need to build at least five times more acres of parks, uh, almost or more than double our current acreage if you uh subtract out North Bay Shore.

To me, this is where my existential crisis comes in.

Getting to this level is going to be a Herculan effort, cause requiring incredible creativity, especially with funding and acquisition strategy and incredible willpower of our entire community, including staff and council.

So, how will we get to even starting on this goal?

If this is the goal we believe we need to have and in this time, how do we specifically prioritize our understerved areas and committing to build at least one park within our service areas or within a 10-minute walk of where people live or whatever metric matters because we know people are underserved, people are telling us that, um, and it's only about to get worse.

Um, R3 zoning, SB 79 and precise plans like East Wisman will only cause substantially more dense development in areas that are already severely underparked, uh, particularly in Sterling and Brexdorf, but also Thompson, Wisman and San Antonio.

Um, some are going to be impacted by all three of these things.

Uh, so what are we going to do when constrained by park fees?

How are we going to get the money to ensure basic equity?

We have no current plan and no path forward to actually build the parks that people are going to need that live there today and will live there in the future and not that distant future by 2040, when the population of Mountain View may increase by 50 or 60,000 people.

Um that's where I I'm left with a question that Jessica asked: how will this approving this project move us forward in our goal?

I don't know.

My greatest concern is if the commission says no, uh, we want to delay this and have it brought back to us, we will delay being able to act on the things we know we can act on today.

If we just simply say no, um, that will definitely have a negative impact.

But equally, if we say yes, will we say, well, thank goodness our work is done and human nature says, well, we don't have to worry about that for a while and simply forget and feel we've done our job here tonight.

Uh so that's where I'm stuck.

Um, I do like Commissioner Davis' idea to look at a funding strategy that comes back to us separately.

I'd like to hear a little bit more what staff has to think about the timing and feasibility of that.

Um, other than that, I would love to see what other commissioners think about the trade-offs.

Thank you.

Great, thanks.

Um, okay, I'll move on to my comments.

Um, first, you know, I really, really appreciate the updates and the additions that have been made from the time we saw this um in November until now.

Uh, I think that's incorporated a lot of feedback from the PRC and from residents, and then you know, making even more revisions after this has gone through council.

And I think in terms of how we've moved forward, and I'll get to some of that later.

We have to remember this has already gone to council.

I mean, this is you know, we're not preparing it for the first time to go to council.

And I'm not sure that they want to see radical change.

Um, but we can get to that later.

Um anyway, I think that the resulting document from all the changes, um, you know, I know it's taken a lot of effort because chapters have been rewritten or completely new.

I think the city staff has taken on more than I think they envisioned um doing on this.

And I think that um, you know, I think that we've made great progress.

I think we're close.

Um again, we're not gonna solve well, we'll get to it later again, but we're not gonna solve every problem sitting at this table tonight in terms of how how we're gonna come up with funding and stuff.

There are chapters in this with funding ideas that minds have put thought to over the last six to nine months, and that you know, so I don't know that we're gonna solve it or suddenly tell people to solve it.

But anyway, we'll get to that.

Um I also um but anyway, I think I think we've made great progress.

I think we're close.

I think that this is a plan that the city can be proud of and rely upon as a guideline for uh future directions.

Um, I'm just gonna now walk through some of my general comments.

Um, some of them might be a little bit more specific.

I'm a little bit more analytical and engineering ish on my things.

Um, so I'm gonna sort of take them in order of the chapter of the plan.

Um, so chapter five analysis, I was glad to see that the 10 minute walk maps have been um updated to show scenarios without school properties and also taking into account major thoroughfares and barriers.

I think that's a more realistic depiction of how residents access our parks.

In chapter six guidelines for new park design and park improvements.

Um this is just sort of an observation that I that I had in reading this this section.

You know, I totally understand the reasoning.

Um, but the necessity for all parks to be visible or to all areas of a park to be visible with unobstructive site lines, unfortunately, you know, for me, kind of limits the ability to create areas where someone can go have a true peaceful solitude experience.

And I completely realize that visibility is probably a hard requirement for safety, but it would be really nice to be able to have some private areas where park visitors could just go sit quietly and enjoy the natural surroundings without seeing a playground or a soccer game or having dog walkers and bikers passing by.

And I was just thinking, you know, that maybe even a semi-secluded area could add, you know, a small, I'll say this eco-friendly water feature in that space that might mitigate some some park um noise.

And actually AI eco-friendly water feature, and they do exist.

So it's not it wouldn't necessarily be wasting water.

Um, but anyway, I'm just wondering if there's a way to design areas that at least feel secluded while still honoring um safety needs.

Um chapter seven, the framework for prioritizing new park planning and park improvements.

I thought that the revised framework for categorizing new park planning and park improvements is more intuitive and better developed than the old tier A, Tier B, Tier C concept that we saw in the original draft.

I think it's clearer to then set priority levels within development or new development enhancement and update.

And I think we do, we have set priority levels in those in those categories.

Um, and and some of them are immediate-ish and and or short term.

And so I think that some of these things that people want, I think are sort of in the plan.

Um this is a little nitpicky, but anyway, I you know, on page 119, um, 7.4.1 neighborhood park investment.

It shows the cost of six new neighborhood parks is listed as between 390 and 480 million dollars.

Um I see that, and then you know, I that price tag is sort of a sticker shock price tag.

Um, but that only comes if all six of those are five-acre parks.

And and I was just thinking that you know, if each, if each of those was actually one to two acres, which also might be the more realistic thing that could happen in those neighborhoods, um, the cost would be 65 to 160 instead of 390 to 480.

And so I was just thinking perhaps that bulleted section could show the lowest as well as the highest range of cost based on park sizes of you know one acre versus five acres, rather than just sow the largest um park size.

Getting to chapter eight goals, strategies, and action.

To me, this is sort of the guts of the plan.

Um overall, I think it's comprehensive.

Um it's well thought out set of actions with realistic timelines and high level cost estimates, which is what we have today.

Um I appreciate that this version uh went from 38 actions to 52 actions.

Um I'm going from the time we saw it.

Um, I think those the ones that were added make sense, and I'm I'm glad that they were added.

Um I appreciate that in a handful of actions, the time horizon has been pushed up to be more current.

Um I I do all these cross checking without Claude.

I didn't even have Claude help me.

Um I I really appreciate the addition of the milestones column.

I mean, that's huge.

It wasn't there when we saw this in November.

That adds accountability, and there are bullet points that address accountability for each of those actions.

You know, one small knit on that is that while almost all the milestones are measurable or could be clearly marked as completed or not completed, a very limited number are still a bit nebulous.

Um, so like if I look at action 1.1.4, the milestone says continue land acquisition strategy.

Okay, to me, that feels unmeasurable.

And you know, I was just throwing out a couple ideas, maybe something like identify and evaluate X number of potential land acquisition opportunities in each calendar year.

That's something that would be measurable.

Or since indoor sports complex is listed as part of that action, you know, whether we agree that's needed or not, perhaps a milestone could be evaluate the need and cost for an indoor sports complex.

So either we continue down that path or we or we put it on the back burner.

But it we would add some measurables to that action.

And there were there were a few others, and it may just be the nature of some of the actions that they don't lend themselves to specific milestones.

But if staff could maybe take one more pass through the milestones column and just see if any bullets with additional specificity could be added.

Um, I appreciate the commitment to a track to tracking progress through a dashboard on the city web page, as well as through annual reports or presentations to PRC and council.

And I did get that interpretation from reading from reading the plan.

Um it's also notable that this version of the plan, I think beefed up action 5.2.2, which is a commitment to outreach to increase community awareness of progress on the plan.

Um, I like the language on that.

I appreciate that metric one was changed from tracking the percentage of residents within a 10-minute walk to parks to the more familiar tracking of acres per thousand in planning areas.

And I think that that's important.

If we just look at the city overall, yeah, it's meeting the three that it's meeting the three per thousand and and but that's not sufficient.

So I think the the granularity of looking at uh at tracking that through planning areas is is still still very important.

When when we talk about uh you know, where we're gonna prioritize first and and equity and and things like that that comes across in in looking at that data by planning area.

I wouldn't want to lose that.

Um so anyway, thank you for tweaking that metric, not tweaking, re redoing that metric.

Um, a few comments on specific actions.

Um earned I I mentioned this before in the November meeting, I'll say it again.

Um, for Stevens Creek Trail, it really feels like to me, like some of the amenities, for example, benches and wayfinding could be completed in a much shorter um time horizon than six to ten years.

Um, and I even tried to look at, you know, I mean, I could see the water hydration could take a while because you got to put in pipes, but but you know, there weren't a whole lot of other things in that action besides the benches wayfinding and and uh water hydration.

So anyway, um, you know, that this action is listed as $3 signs, one to five million.

And I just think it would be a you know quite a bit less than that for some benches and some wayfinding.

And to Renit's point, well, you know, this is one that you know, I think it gnocked off pretty easy.

It could be a it could be a quick win.

Um, I just think you know, residents might donate money for benches with commemorative plaques.

I would certainly consider it myself.

I mean, I don't think those probably cost a ton.

Um friends of Stevens Creek Trail could could probably help and would be interested in helping with fundraising and something like that.

Um item 2.1.1, I'm sorry, action 2.1.1.

I was glad to see that expanding tree canopy in many open space areas is immediate.

It's an immediate time frame action, and it now is not commingled, at least in that action with shade structures, as it was in the November draft.

So I so I see there was progress on that um in terms of not linking that with shade structures.

Uh for actions 3.1.4 and 3.1.5.

This is another one that I mentioned at an earlier meeting.

I really hope it's possible that some new adult and 55 and older fitness and wellness operations can go live in less than three to five years.

I mean, it would be great if even just a few could be added.

Um, I'll acknowledge that the stretch milestone of piloting 10 or six classes in those respective areas could take three to five years.

I but it would be nice to be able to get a few done right away.

And I think that that might be there was a comment about um that the surveys didn't really show fitness and wellness in parks as a as a as a thing, but I but I think when you connect it with the desire for classes for fitness and wellness, it it makes sense from maybe that perspective.

Um actions 414 and 415.

If I interpret these correctly, these are new actions which acknowledge um the city needs capacity in public works for project management, transportation, and engineering to complete many elements of this plan.

I think it's great to add those.

It's important to recognize that those are realistic costs as we move forward.

Um and 5.2.2.

I touched on this before.

Regular and transparent reporting of progress on milestones and metrics, maybe one of the most important actions that there is.

Um and to Renee's point, you know, account of the trees is is important and should be pretty pretty easy to include.

Um moving to appendices.

Um appendix A.

Um, I think it's important that this draft now includes a look back to progress from the 2014 plan.

I hope that uh whoever writes this next plan 10 to 15 years from now will look back on this current plan more than I think we may have done um with the 2014 plan, or at least um in our PRC meetings.

Hopefully, with the annual reports to PRC and council and a transparent city website dashboard.

This 2026 plan is going to be a living document.

Well, it's actually going to be the ongoing focal point of planning and comparison, unlike the 2014 plan.

So, in that way, I'm hopeful that this plan will be used regularly as we as we move forward.

Appendix G, acreage and amenities for planning areas.

Um, while I came to understand and appreciate them, I'm fine with the equity maps being retired and replaced by um what I think are easier to read park and amenity distribution maps that show sort of simple circles with the related number of amenities or acreage shown inside each circle.

I also like that the figures are color-coded for city and school district ownership.

Uh moving to another item in appendix G, um, I'm gonna make a pitch.

I recognize I'm probably on the losing end of this battle, um, but I continue to not be supportive of including trails in planning areas.

I just think that it skews the numbers for acreage that's not really usable except as a trail.

Young kids and toddlers can't safely run around on trails.

You can't kick a ball or throw a frisbee on a trail.

People can't barbecue on trails.

For the most part, you can't even sit down on a trail, especially if the benches are limited or spaced far apart.

So I think that including trails makes some planning areas now appear to be more park-rich than what I and probably many of the members who are residents who live in those areas would perceive.

Very importantly, this new methodology really inflates the numbers in two of our planning areas by including Stevens Creek Trail, the grant planning area now doubles in acreage or almost doubles in acreage, going from 2.38 to 4.32.

And in case in a case that I think is even more misleading, the Wisman planning area also increased by over 80% by including Streving's Creek Trail, bumping up from 1.73 to 3.14.

So now Wisman appears fine by the three acres per thousand metrics when residents living there probably don't feel it's it's you know, and they probably still feel it's deficient.

And not everybody lives right next to that trail.

So you know, so nothing's changed in their lives, but suddenly they're they're now uh deemed to be okay.

Um anyway, those are two fairly dramatic changes, which which may impact the perceived need for more parkland in those planning areas.

I think, don't get me wrong, I think trails are a wonderful citywide amenity.

But I don't think that they should be misleadingly elevate the parkland acreage data in individual planning areas.

And going a step further, and I sort of did this before Claude, but uh removing shoreline and allocating or removing the trails from shoreline and allocating them to the planning areas also has the impact of reducing the amount of additional non-shoreline acreage needed to reach citywide three acres per thousand from 87 acres down to 53 acres.

Not sure how I feel about that, but it reduces the cost of acquiring that land shortfall from 1.1 billion to 700 million.

That's a major reduction in financial need simply by virtue of a seemingly innocuous county decision.

You know, this is a little facetious, but I wish it was always that easy to save 400 million dollars.

Um anyway, I know it's late in the game, and and I'll get to that later, but I hope that this is something that can be reconsidered, or at a minimum, make a footnote somewhere that the WISMAN planning area is more in need of parkland than what the tables in the plan present.

Uh lastly on appendix G, um, while the level of service benchmarks were interesting in the past, you know, I still have them sort of jotted down uh on my paper.

I was definitely a critic of the somewhat non-transparent methodology and arriving at those benchmark levels.

Um, so I'm fine with them being removed from the plan.

I think it does, you know, it leaves open the questions like are there enough basketball courts citywide?

Um, or does bound view have enough tennis courts?

But I I believe you know, feedback on amenity shortballs can also be assessed through a direct resident feedback, B actually viewing how crowded um facilities and amenities are, or C comparison with neighboring cities adjusted for population differences.

So I think there's other ways to get at that.

Um, so anyway, you know, there have been a there were a couple areas where I was a little bit critical, but overwhelmingly, I'm I'm positive about this plan.

Um, I think that this plan specifically with the 52 actions presented, presents a menu.

It's a menu of important, you know, the important elements for getting to where we want to get to.

It's going to cost a lot.

We don't have all the answers for those for that right now.

Um, it's going to cost a lot in dollars in head count to make significant progress on the menu.

I think it's going to be up to next to our city council and to our community to determine how important these things are and the level of investment we're willing to make.

I think that we as PRC members, as well as our more engaged residents, and I truly appreciate how engaged people are.

You know, we've had people come to every meeting, and that goes beyond all the surveys and stuff, but we've had we have some very dedicated people who committed a lot of time to this.

And whether you know, today at the city council meeting, I mean, that's not the end point to this.

I mean, we need to be out in the community and at meetings advocating for the importance of allocating resources so that the community can make progress on the elements of this plan.

Um, you know, getting to some notes that I wrote down in terms of of um comments on things from tonight.

You know, I'm I'm I'm gonna be in favor of moving this forward without seismic changes.

I think it's um, you know, it's never too late, but it is a little bit late in in the game to make those changes to to make monumental um structural changes.

Um, this has come through us, you know.

Again, I think we would have liked, I think we envisioned it to be more iterative throughout the process, and it didn't happen that way, but it's come to us, it has come to city council.

Um, people have plenty of opportunities to weigh in.

Um, you know, there's a statement I you know, just saying, and I didn't I don't know it exactly, but don't let perfect get in the way of progress or something like this.

At some point, we need to move forward.

Um, you know, in some ways, I think we're not gonna be able to try to, we're not we're not gonna be able to solve everything at this table in terms of how how to get all the money that and and to solve all those problems.

I I think the city is kind of in a holding zone until this gets passed before we can start taking actions that relate to things like funding.

Um, so I I think that at some point uh you know we need to to move forward um in terms again in terms of large changes.

I I think that these you know this has come before us, and we're not we're not gonna solve everything.

Um there will be opportunities for people to speak at future council meetings.

Um this is an active document that is gonna be iterative iterative as more information becomes available and more things are are known.

Um so again, I will probably be involved you know, in favor of moving this forward.

I can um I can see uh an additional statement along each line that you know we would like to see you know small immediate changes happen immediately.

So I mean there is you know, action 2.1.1 does have immediate changes related to um some canopy things and and stuff like that.

So it is sort of there, but but um you know maybe we can make it more immediate than immediate or or or say that you know, I mean, I think Ernie worded it really nicely.

I mean, got let's have some things done right away.

I mean, I mean, just I mean, there are some low-cost things that we can get done right away, and uh I hope that we can move forward with that.

Uh, in terms of uh a funding strategy document, I'm not sure what that I'm intrigued because I'm a finance-ish guy.

Um, I'm not sure what that looks like and how that's different from all the work that's that's gone on in terms of you know, funding strategies.

I think if there were tangible things, um they might have emerged by now, and I don't know how much longer it's gonna take to have more specificity.

But anyway, I'm open to that, and again, I'm thankful um for all the work that's that's happened on this, and thanks for listening to my my long spiel.

And I know that we want to take it more have more discussion now, but it was important for everybody to be able to say their their first the first thing.

So well, I completely disagree with you, some very minor little things, but completely agree with you on your overall frost of your comments.

I I think um to some degree this depends on what lens you're looking for this plane with.

Um so Mr.

Summer kind of uh said that the thousand is not that relevant in the mind, you know, for planning perspective because quality is should be the reference point, not quantity proof.

But you know this thing is part an operation plan, it's part is a synthesis of community aspiration.

But one of the things is is it it's laying out a legally defensible basis for policy changes like feeds, and so things like the uh quantities are important, at least for that argument.

I don't I agree with you that that's not what makes parks great or or neighborhoods or communities great is some uh kind of arbitrary number.

Um but you know, to the same point about school fields.

I I appreciate how staff kind of referenced uh allocation of the school fields, but in including them, we reduce the number that you know we say is in demand.

And I think I think we want part of what this document has to accomplish is to be a uh forceful demand for more resources.

Um we get law maybe not um trail allocation.

Um so I think the the unlike your perspective, uh the shift from putting it all in North Bay Shore to allocating it to the you know immediately adjacent planning areas is an improvement, but I also think you could look at it and say, well, wait a minute, trails are distinct from in-2 parks in that they are circulation corridors if people from all over the city use those, and you could allocate a percentage of a trail to even a distant planning area.

So you know, there's different ways to look at it, and I think throughout this whole plan, there's a lot of different ways to look at the the various issues or planning biodiversity um elements.

Um but I would go back to the you know, the kind of the the thing before us now is you know, are we gonna take time and and try and improve it more, or do we uh send it forward with some qualifications uh in I would agree with you to send it forward if we can attach to it, and maybe we're not in agreement on what those qualifications could be.

I think it's something more than just specifying some immediate um implementations.

I I do like this notion of saying, well, what are the different possibilities?

What are the scenarios we could look at?

You know, these are the immediate ones with what we know we have right now, we can do this, so let's do it.

This is you know, if these things happen with these bond measures or this nexus study or these things, um, these are the things, and then but those are the possibilities.

This is the order we should attack this.

So um, so I do I would continue to advocate for whatever you want to call it, a um financial funding strategy assessment um accompaniment to this that you know their order of magnitude estimates up based on what we think we might get out of the different funding odds and what are the probabilities of those occurring, and that could give us a better sense of how we how we pursue implementation.

Uh I'm gonna stop there.

If I could jump in here, this sounds to me for one thing that the PRC does not usually get involved in money, but sets uh a strategy and a direction, and what what you're suggesting um seems to me like quite a piece of work.

Um it seems like the city's going through the Nexus study, and they're discussing, I guess, the various the R4 hasn't passed yet, I think.

Um I I don't see that that asking the city to do a financial analysis now, or or even doing it before May when council is going to look at this.

Um I don't know that there's any way we have any kind of sorty, either about what our finances are going to look like, what the growth of the city will look like, uh how can we commit ourselves to buying land in certain neighborhoods.

I mean, those wishes have been in place for a long time.

Um talking about assurance.

Which is which is why I I'm so concerned about this not leading us anywhere new.

There's a lot of even the immediate actions tend to be actions of and this is something I I asked uh staff about that they will try to figure out how to increase biodiversity expertise.

That's like a two one to two-year process, which means we can wait two years until we have someone on board with biodiversity expertise, and meanwhile, there's programs that require that in terms of biodiverse planting and biodiverse uh maintenance, uh which is why I felt it I really would like us to ask staff to look at strategies for enhancements instead of very similar to what what the chair said.

We don't have to enhance two parks completely you can enhance five parks partially and that that's a basic strategy which we did not get the chance to talk about and so I would like to at least ask council to think about it.

Because when council looked at the draft of the strategic plan they had a good conversation they made many excellent points but they never discussed the like the immediate change versus this is a strategic plan and within fifteen years maybe we will have reached some of these goals.

So I would just like to force them to talk about this why I would like to add something to the motion to make them talk about it because if it's an emotion they'll they'll have to respond in some way so you know like like uh like our chair I mean I've been thinking for this task whenever we got those the draft back what do we do with this now is there do I say no let's just do this let's start let's start with some of the good actions do I just say yes it's not what I wanted the process maybe was not what I wanted.

There are many issues that we should have discussed like toxic toxic materials in in parks like the the uh classification that that you were mentioning about active uses of passive uses really dislike the word passive amenities versus non-amenities that's part of the discussion we should have had to do you know how much of this do we want what kind of balance do we want um so I I don't see I don't see you know the discussion about the uh the addition of the of the trail acreages to the neighborhoods yeah I can see positive about it I can see negative about it for pedestrians the chairs are not the place to be it's the transportation corridor um I doubt the council will be interested in revisiting that so really the question is what do we do now may we take just a quick yeah I think I got two three minutes break that's a whole bio break if possible sure sure sorry for it nobody can talk about this otherwise it's a problem actually without a war we can be in the middle you know really wish we could do that actually discuss stuff out here so I don't

Yeah, I think it's true.

This is for stickies on them.

That's how we need them.

I don't even know if you have that.

You said 906 for that.

Okay, yeah, we're gonna go.

All right.

Um we're gonna resume.

And we you were talking about starting, yeah.

Yes, um so a couple things about what I what I heard from other commission questions.

Um the subject of whether to count trails in the planning.

The problem is the level of service standard, not the fact that we're counting trails in planning areas, for example, really there are certain constituencies that do use parts of that land that's not the trail for things, like your average 11-year-old in the BMX bike, I tell you they're out there because you look and there's all these little BMX trails everywhere.

So the perception of it really has to do with how you define what underserved means, and it's my opinion that the three acre per 1000 minimum level service standard at this study or planning area level.

I don't think we should maintain that as our standard.

I think we should maintain it as city wide standard, but I don't think that it's realistic with current city development patterns.

I'm kind of curious, like what does San Francisco have as its part standard, and how would they account for Golden Gay Park, which is run by the city.

Um to me, the definition of underserved is more than level level of service and and so whatever you define the level of service as, it's underserved me.

What I would recommend well, okay, time out.

I could get behind letting you know, letting this continue on with the planned process if we make some recommendations.

I think that was what Commissioner Bryant was getting at too.

Um I do somewhat agree with Mr.

Midzner that it sort of skews the uh acreage totals in the planning areas, but in my mind that's only important if you have a three eight acre or three acres per 1000 resident level of service standard at the study area level.

And that kind of takes me back to I don't think we should have that.

I think we should have the definition of underserved, which would include the level of service and the 10-minute walking radius, accounting for roadway patterns, and the areas highly dependent upon school facility parks.

If that is the case, I would define that as unreserved.

So then so that's one piece.

Come up with an actual level service standard that we do want to see at the study area level that we do think is realistic, and I do think it's important to have more than we currently are seeing.

I don't know if it's two or two and a half, but uh in what I was envisioning, I would leave that to the council to determine.

But it does it is really pretty unrealistic to have it in a um vertically developing kind of suburban core area, which is gonna be there's neighborhoods.

We have neighborhoods that are like that.

That's central for sure.

San Antonio is starting to do it.

Sounds like Sterling too.

That's not realistic to get three acres.

Um so now we're back to the underserved areas.

I heard all of us and a lot of the public input as well that really highly focused on equity.

And so again, a recommendation would be if we're to advance along that we recommend the council identify pick a number at the top 10 priority actions to address the underserved study areas for implementation in the next X years.

We can talk about that.

Yeah, I think Commissioner Bryant was pushing for five years.

Um the reason I say it that way is when we I was working at Midpen when they did their 300 million dollar bond measure.

And we the you know, the project that was my baby was the vision plan, which is the equivalent of the strategic plan.

And it was really important to tee up capital projects for the bond measure because the bond cannot fund you know hiring staff, it has to have capital projects.

This plan needs to list projects very clearly so that it can be transitioned into the bond measure.

So we this there are projects in there, but you can't tell really which are the highest priority ones that really need immediate action.

So okay, we aren't we aren't gonna do that here.

Council needs to do that before it approves the plan, I think, and pick any random number I pick penned.

Um and then so what this is is sort of few things to do to the strategic plan before they give it its final blessing that will set up for the next steps.

Um I think that the uh uh community members really made a pretty good case that that risk analysis section needs to include some contingency plans.

What if you know if this happens, then what?

And so I think that you should recommend that they that be added to it.

So that there's just four things in my that we would recommend.

So just a couple of couple of clarifications.

Um I did hear four right now.

I hope two.

So what were the four things?

So develop a definition of underserved.

We could either make a recommendation or we could just leave it at that.

I had a recommendation, but whatever.

Um clearly identify the level of service standard for the study areas.

I was suggesting that we recommend less than three, but we can talk about that.

The third was identify the top 10 priority actions to address underserved study areas.

So in terms of really essentially the some capital projects, and then the fourth was incorporate contingency plan options into the risk analysis, what to do if the number risks, and that's a good section, but we don't do anything with them.

What would be some options that you respond?

Like what could we do?

So basically you starting from the assumption that which I I agree that the the three acres per 1000, which we have never achieved, there is no realistic path for us to achieve it with the city growing like that, and we need to figure out another definition of what it means to serve our residents.

We will already need it at citywide level, and we would never want to drop below it in that development may actually drop us below it, but it's at the study area level.

We need to have three per thousand in the central area.

That's the question.

So I'm gonna just interject for a second.

I don't want to get too in the weeds at this point in this whole thing.

Um sort of had second opportunity to speak, except for Commissioner Sylvester, and once she does, and I I sort of want to bring it back to our assistant city manager and Christine to sort of weigh in on where they think we're at and we know what they think council is expecting in terms of what's going to come from PLC.

So I don't know if you had additional comments at this point.

What do you think here, Chair?

Um I really do want to hear about the funding strategy.

Uh that assistant uh city manager Seymour talked about what she meant, what it could include, how it should fit into a potential motion we make or not fit into it.

Um but I'm also concerned we're getting into the a lot of weeds, and I don't know what weeds we should be in.

Um there's clearly differences of opinion about how we're counting trails, but I really think that argument does not impact the ultimate plan very very much.

We still have a deficit no matter what.

Just I'm just gonna make one since I was a guy who did the I mean I did too.

I made my point.

And I'm I'm perfectly fine if that is not if that I mean, even that I think is in the weeds at sort of at this point.

I you know, I hope people listen to it and maybe they go somewhere with it.

But I I would not be proposing that we alter that we make a statement to alter this.

No, I'm saying the kinds of things we're starting to talk about are things that I think none of us are expecting necessarily to get into a motion and know it can't be put into a motion.

They may or may not be interesting in the case of the trails, it doesn't make it makes a material impact on money and acreage, but it doesn't make a big material impact in the overall deficit in any way.

So before we get stuck on weeds like that, where we could talk all night on a particular topic.

Um I definitely want to ask staff if we are going, like if we took it look at what Commissioner Summer Summer is asking about, like creating a different definition of underserved.

Do we even have a capabilities of doing something like that tonight?

Or a level of service making a decision if that should be done on a an area by area basis or citywide.

I feel like the cities and staff have already invested a lot of time writing an entire report based on the level of service.

And saying what I was preferring to what is it?

We I was recommending that the council do that work, not us tonight.

Even if recommended, I I would ask staff that I would probably have them kick back the entire plan for a rewrite.

So anyway, I mean, do you have other points in that?

Because I don't let them talk as long as they want.

Um I think it's time to turn into staff for some feedback.

Um, thank you so much.

And I'm gonna go ahead and start out on behalf of the staff table and the staff peanut gallery.

Um and first I just want to say that this has been a uh just such a thoughtful conversation.

And I'm so impressed with the degree to which you not only read what was before you for tonight, but kind of tracked it over the two other versions.

That's asking a lot, as long as these plans were.

And I appreciate Commissioner Bryant saying that it can be overwhelming.

It's there's a lot of good stuff, but then it's not hard to find things to take issue with.

And especially as I listen to the different ways that each of you kind of um things and process information and what we're hearing from the public as they've made their comments, that I think we could conceivably write this plan forever and still wind up having this kind of robust discussion.

Um, and I appreciate where I can sense the commission is going around not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, which I think is the statement that you were searching for before, and focusing on moving forward, um, focusing on identifying those things that are most important to know are not quite where we want them to be, and figuring out how to get them there, and also just trusting that staff will continue to engage with the performance metrics, with the action plans, with the funding, and with both the the Park and Rec Commission and the and the council with updates around that.

And while we wouldn't have a new plan every year, we certainly can have some of these ancillary documents be updated much more frequently than on an annual basis, which is what we're gonna need to do anyway, because a lot of what we're you know, kind of whether it's an existential crisis or just a discomfort, what we're uncomfortable about is the degree to which there are unknowns, that even if we went back and worked more, would still wind up being unknown.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna try to summarize what I think reflects what you've been saying that would allow you to move the item forward tonight.

But first, I wanted to respond to um Commissioner Sylvester's question about what I might have meant when I talked about, you know, uh a funding strategy or a financing document.

And I want to be clear that as much as I understand that that there would be value in something that said this action plan will cost this much precisely, and this is what we have.

This is what is the gap, and here's precisely how we're going to fill that gap with what source and how that's gonna be prioritized against everything else in the plan.

Um, I think that that's a level of planning that is for a 10-15 year plan is just not possible.

And I also think that the council really are the ones that have the role to set budgets and to set capital improvement project plans.

And they will retain that authority to do that based on what are the information that does become available about what comes in through Measure G and what if we do place a measure on the ballot and it's successful, they will identify the project specifically to be funded in the from uh from that bond um uh measure.

Um and then the precisely kind of the where and the serving the underserved, I think it's entirely desirable and realistic to say we know what our underserved areas are, whether it's allocating trails or not allocating trails.

It doesn't really change what that is.

Um, and that we are going to prioritize.

I'm hearing two things that I don't think are incompatible, they're a both end.

Let's let's prioritize the most underserved areas, and let's find some things that we can do to give quicker wins, quicker benefits to the community as a whole.

And I heard tree planting as one very concrete example around that.

And so I think that that's entirely um reasonable to do.

Um, I also think that we may have danced around it a little bit in the plan because it felt like um maybe a bit much for us as staff to say we need to let go of three acres per thousand at the planning area level.

I'm appreciating that commissioner has says that, has said that, but we always at the staff level have has said it's citywide that we're going to meet the three, and we do meet the three, depending on development.

We might not always meet the three, even with the regional parks.

So that continues to give us that standard that we want to achieve.

And at the planning area, we do want to see what it means to be underserved.

And I actually rather liked your examples.

I think the reliance on school fields, I think that's that's an elegant way.

I don't think it makes sense to take them out of the park calculations.

I I really appreciate the analysis done to reduce them by 43% based on their hours of availability.

Um, and yes, it's true, they may become unavailable in the future.

Um, and I think we can do a better job in the plan noting that that does create a greater degree of vulnerability for the already underserved areas.

We do talk about it in the risk section, that's one of the identified risks.

Um, but we um, and we may or may not have included it in that appendix G, which kind of became like the holy grail of what's happening at the planning area level.

It's like where do we have R3 and where do we have, you know, what's SB 79 going to do, and you know, also how do the different, you know, transportation or traffic barriers impact.

There was a whole section that we added around access that's at the um part of chapter five with the assessment of parks, like a whole you know, lengthy section on access that really goes planning area by planning area.

So I think we've got a lot of that already there around where is the the accessibility to walk or bike um lower and also um uh where are the the reliance on the school fields.

I just don't think we've pulled it all together in one way and said this further you know creates vulnerability for this, or maybe for an area that raises it from not being considered underserved.

I don't think it actually will.

I think we're gonna wind up with with roughly the same planning areas.

And in terms of what's the goal or what's the cutoff, and this is where I don't think that the allocation of trails makes a difference because you notice we just kind of increased what the what the line was for where we wanted to look to two acres per per thousand.

And some of these these uh underserved areas are quite a bit below that.

So it would make sense really to be focusing on those.

However, we can't control whether there will be land available in those.

And so, and land availability doesn't always happen on the timing that you want it to happen.

And so, might we wind up going to the third lowest um uh planning area in terms of land purchase because we don't have an opportunity otherwise, those are going to be decisions that the council's going to make.

I don't think that we can have some kind of um, you know, upfront, not even just by the PRC, but even by the council.

I don't know that they are going to be able to say we won't spend a dollar until we can buy land in Sterling or we until we can buy land in Rangsdorf.

Um, and so that's why I think that that document is that is going to be uh very much evolving based on what we learn about um revenues that are available to us from these different funding measures, and as you know, different kinds of land is available, we're going to be allocating to the action plans in that way.

And I think we can do that in a separate document.

I don't think that gets adopted with the plan.

I think that comes after the plan.

Um so I think that speaks to the funding priorities and sources.

I think speaking to the school space is really by better describing in the planning area descriptions the vulnerability towards the loss of the school space and including that in the concept of what makes an area underserved.

Um I think the inclusion, I already spoke to the inclusion of some immediate actions and that tree planning being one.

And it sounds like we're already starting on that.

So immediate already has a good good leg up.

I don't know that I would think that we can do all the parks a little bit as opposed to two parks fully renovated and enhanced, because I just don't think that's the way that project management works.

I think we could only do that with things that were a little bit more surgical, not surgical, but a little bit more um possible to define and come in and say kind of regardless of what we're gonna want to do in enhancements down the road.

We know we're gonna want trees and we're gonna, you know, we're gonna want them in these places, and and just really counting on staff's expertise to be able to do that because this is you know, this is what they do.

Um and then I think it would be an interesting conversation for council to have if part of your motion is that that you suggest to council that they discuss what a uh a planning area level standard um target should be.

And again, I probably wouldn't say that we then would be mandated to to achieve.

I mean, uh I liked um I can't remember which of you said that the purpose of the plan is to create a real sense of urgency around the need for more resources that might have been commissioner um Davis.

Um, and um I think the plan already does that.

You see some big dollar amounts in that plan.

And I think you you you I hopefully see a lot of very earnest intention on city staff's part to recognize how important that is to the community and um to to have a framework for how to begin um uh achieving that.

Um there was also some comments around kind of the native trees and planning.

I don't think this needs to be necessarily part of a motion because I think we heard some ways in which we can work that into the plan as it's currently written, really making sure that we amplify and tie to the um uh biodiversity and urban forest plan in in all the ways that we can, um, hoping for a little grace if we miss one or two places where it doesn't sound like, you know, because sometimes we hear this feedback and we go, oh gosh, well, look, we can find it in 10 different places here, but we don't know which five places that you might have been looking at where it wasn't, and we probably aren't gonna get that exactly right.

Um, but I think we can go back to the park design design um uh section and really look and make sure that we're we're speaking about that, about the native planting.

And um, I think adding a metric around the number of trees planted is that's very doable and very reasonable.

Um let me see if there was anything else.

That's I think what I captured that that I thought that you know picked up on a lot of the themes that you were discussing, and that would enable us to move forward.

I think that is what council's expecting.

They were very pleased with the plan when it came to them in January.

I mean, in fact, I've heard some of the most positive affirmations, like those are the kind of things that as staff you just kind of go, oh yeah, I'm gonna keep that with me forever because that was really, really nice.

Um, and um, and that doesn't mean that they they have it completely counted on and valued the review that you've done and your input, but I I think they are they are ready for it to move forward.

And know that things that don't need to be in the motion, we can still summarize this robust discussion and the things that concerned you about, you know, the pros and cons on the rail allocation and and other things that you've discussed.

I think around the natural slash passive um use and I mean that was a very interesting matrix.

I think it's useful.

I don't think we can replan the the plan around it, but I think we'll we'll be able to use it.

Um and um yeah, I think I think that's it.

So I'm gonna let Christine speak, but I I guess a little bit where I'm gonna maybe hearing, but anyway, is I want to hear from Christine, but I would probably be thinking in terms of making a motion at some point to move this forward with two additional statement or something like that.

But I but I'm not ready, I'm not making a motion yet because I don't want you to have to but the concept of prioritizing underserved areas, um, also accounting for vulnerabilities if there were loss of school school space would be one thing, and the other thing would be to look to prioritize some immediate improvements, you know, quick wins, or I would let Commissioner Bryan word that how she wanted.

So that's sort of where I'm at.

But Christine, if you could sure thank you so much.

I um I think that assistant city manager Seymour said it very eloquently of how you your discussion has evolved over the evening and evolved um in general over the various meetings.

And I hope you recognize that is your feedback from the November meeting that has added so much more value to the plan and it's continued to add value as we keep making these iterations.

Um as typical Christine over here, I am ferociously writing everything down almost word for word.

It's kind of crazy.

I sometimes look back and go, what are they right?

Um but um there's been a lot of really great nuggets that I'm hearing tonight that I'm like, okay, I hear that, and I think I know where I can put that.

Um and as um assistant city manager Seymour mentioned, um, there are things that we'll naturally incorporate where we can without needing them to be incorporated within an amended recommendation of sorts.

Um, but I'm um eager to advance if there is that possibility.

Um and as you mentioned, um we would we as staff really want to move into the implementation so we can start making the changes that will make a positive impact on the community that we serve.

And um again, it's it's from the fantastic feedback we've been receiving from our community members from the commission as well as from the council that has really shaped this, in addition to the staff expertise that has been woven in throughout this document.

Um, so with that, um I'll turn it back over to to the commission um and see where we go next.

Okay, so I'm gonna just throw out the start of the the concept of a motion.

There would be something along the lines of what I said before.

It would be to um forward a recommendation to the city council to adopt the parks and recostrategic plan.

Um not under these conditions, but but to also at the same time look at ways to prioritize acquisitions and improvements to underserved areas of the city, taking into account vulnerabilities, um if there were to be a loss of school school space, and second, to look for let Commissioner Bryan do this, look for opportunities to make immediate improvements.

Um I'll let you do it.

Yeah, I mean, and this again, this is just my statement or something.

So really the the language that I was thinking of adding let me just say uh Seymour, your your summary and your your suggestions for moving forward were just wonderful.

I know Christine is writing notes and making uh making changes, but you your your summary was just great, really.

Uh so what I was going to propose is um so I don't have the language ready because I was going to ask council to consider adding a strategy of ongoing improvements to parks with native plantings and additional native canopy citywide.

Um because the my fear is that focusing on major improvements in specific parks on a multi-year schedule means that some parks might not be scheduled for improvements within the planning horizon of the plan.

And that that was really my concern that if we do I I understand I understand project planning and you want to do the whole park, but if we do two parts every five years, that's six parts in 15 years, and that's not what the community is asking.

So called it surgical, so surgical entries into parks, uh is is fine, so long that they're they're visible, and there's street planting and native habitat inclusion and maybe vengeance.

Um so that there are already immediate actions, but I'm asking for us a slight change in the thinking about complete enhancements versus smaller enhancements in a greater number of parks.

And again, I mean to to that I'm I'm thinking back to Director Marshant's some of the statements.

I think I think he did tell us that you know we're not gonna complete this entire thing again.

I mean, they're gonna be looking for you know, a little here, a little there.

Maybe we wouldn't we want to formalize that somehow.

Because it's not how the plan is written.

Yeah.

So there is there is still a split between what we hear from staff and what is written.

Can I um make a suggestion?

Um just approach the topic, um, that this might also be a dialectic within the dialectic.

It's it's not just addressing the most underserved areas and doing immediate things citywide within the immediate things citywide.

I don't think it's necessarily let's forego comprehensive enhancements of some small number of parks and and only do the things that we can surgically do quickly.

I think there might be some parks based on the assessment where we really do need to do something more comprehensive, more significant, but I don't think that precludes being able to say um it's one of our values and hopes are for this for this plan that improvements get to be seen citywide in ways that that you know people are really going to appreciate.

Um, and I think giving some examples of things that could be done in that way, like trees, like benches.

I just asked Tim, do you have some ideas about this?

He's like, oh yeah, I have some definite ideas about this.

So that I think it can be both.

I wouldn't want to forego that there might be the need to more comprehensively um update one or more parks.

So just to be clear, uh you know, if if there's safety concerns, certainly.

I mean, that this I'm certainly not talking about not moving ahead with the with the with the needed maintenance with parks that have not been updated for decades, that needs to be done.

But those are very big budget items, whereas there are possibilities of much smaller budget items that can move forward and spread to joy and agreed.

And that is um, yeah, yeah, that might wind up being a separate action.

I don't I don't I'm not ready to say exactly how that would get incorporated into the plan.

Um I think it can be prior to what comes to to council.

Um and I I like the the two things that the chair is suggesting as things that we would we would really propose to council, and here's how we we would accomplish this interest of the commissions.

These are the two top interests of the commission, and here's how either we've already incorporated it in the plan, or this is what we would suggest you talk about.

And I'm sorry, let me know.

Yeah, let's jump in it.

It staff has been involved in this process for a long time, you know, from the beginning in meetings, um, reviewing the documents as well.

And if you go back to our 2014 plan, you could ask any of the staff, what goals, what action items are we working on with that?

Nobody, nobody knows, nobody has one.

We now have a document that they've looked at, they see like right now the low-hanging fruit, whether it be planting the trees, whether it be updating the biodiverse landscape and incorporating both plans, they see these as goals as action items that we could check off the list as we move forward.

Whereas before it was kind of like go fix the park, go maintain the way it is.

All of them have asked to start putting in more plants, fix the irrigation inside the landscaping, and we've helped back because we want to get the biodiversity plan and the park smart strategic plan done so that we have a blueprint moving forward of what the plan is, what we want to do, and kind of go throughing the the entire park system of fixing you know, old decrepit uh landscape events.

So the the plan is there, and the staff is motivated to start implementing it.

And on top of that, like how we're progressing here.

Um, I can't recall exactly which fiscal year it was, but council did allocate um funding through I think the CIP for biodiversity, um, enable um the parks and forestry team TP to be at the ready to enhance um our parts with biodiversity, and it's the biodiversity and urban forest plan that we are looking for for that guidance to be able to incorporate those those updates to the park.

So and and we've gone over some of the the action items, you know, I go over with my supervisors and going through, and they're they're already planking off some of them, going, wow, this is something that we could do really quick.

This is something that it's low-hanging fruit, easy to attain, and and there's some that that some that wait, we're able to do this one, and it's a level two or level three uh long-term one that we could do sooner than later.

Chairman?

Yes, right.

So what is being discussed requires a strategy and one type of strategy that people use.

So you imagine your resources, your stack and money is a bucket, right?

Certain size, and some of these projects are big, and some of the projects are little, like little things like irrigation repairs and planting tree type.

And so imagine those as rocks and they're big and they're little rocks.

Well, if you throw a lot of little rocks in your bucket, you never have any room to get your big rock in, right?

It's full.

So one strategy is to reserve capacity for the big rocks, and you have to know what the big rocks are, and you have to see them coming.

They're like five, six, seven, eight years down the road.

So you reserve capacity for the big rocks, and you put the little rocks in between.

That's a strategy, right?

You could say never do the little rocks, but we could say never do the big rocks, but trying to figure out how to make it all come together is a puzzle of how you use your resources.

What strategy would be, and that's right.

All that's here, but that part is missing.

And I guess I guess my thought is.

Yeah, it is, but the components are there, and it's it's going to be staff and city council that's yeah, yeah.

City council for sure.

And maybe this is done on an annual basis or it's a CIP free made thing, but saying how you're going to do it as part of the CIP process, right?

Yeah, and that's how and that's what's happening now is we've got our new parked project coordinator, and we're taking little rocks and we're able to start doing things, start implementing things.

So whether it's park by park, upgrading benches, irrigation stuff in the in the field, our big rocks are sitting over here.

That's public works.

They're doing the bigger ones, but that's also they also have their own bucket that they're working with, you know, citywide.

So it's kind of working in tandem of what little things can we take off their plate to at least, you know, instead of us just doing normal day-to-day work where it's just mow and go type stuff, we now have the capability of starting to do these projects in-house in coordination with public works, but not having to rely on them to put it on their plate or relying on them to put it in order with all the other things that they're doing.

So applying that process, which is pretty robust and well developed to the park plan, letting the council know whether you think it works to deliver this or not.

That's what it would be, right?

That's the strategy.

Commissioner Davis, do you have any more thoughts?

Um I'm all foristically advancing incremental improvements.

I think it's going to be a total confidence in staff in doing that.

Um my concern is retaining the rigor for long-term commitment.

What I hear from the community, you know, there's a whole variety of little this should be counted here, that should be the but the almost unanimous point from the community is skepticism about implementation.

And I don't uh I kind of wish we planned differently.

I think Mr.

Summer has such great ideas, but um, I do think we want to plan forward.

I think the council has to hear skepticism about implementation and not losing sight of the big rocks.

But I guess I think and they they can do the math too.

I mean, they can they can see that.

I haven't seen the math.

I haven't seen no, I know, but I mean, I think I think we should have the math.

I don't know that we we would be the only ones that are skeptical.

But there's also assumptions, there's ability to lay out frameworks and scenarios that you can understand what the possibilities are under the different scenarios and drive more difficultation in those scenarios.

So it gives you know, part of this document is to um I mean there's like I said, there's there's operational components, there's uh organizational components, but a big part of it is is kind of buttressing the legal arguments for things like fees that will provide the resources, and we don't want to lose that.

So um yeah, and I get I I think that some of that's implicit that so I don't have a solution.

I mean, you know, council is gonna have to make choices and they're gonna have to figure things out when things become more known.

I mean, they'll react.

I I just don't want to send it to council with a PRC approved this plan and everyone's happy.

There's a considerable amount of community input that says great plan, really concerned about implementation.

And if how are we gonna change that tonight?

I mean the message needs to go to council.

I don't think we could change it tonight.

If I may, I think the point about the skepticism from the public is very very clear.

Um, we've heard that staff will summarize and send some of the specific feedback from us to council, not as part of an amendment to what we're going to vote on, but um specific feedback.

I've heard more negative feedback, skepticism from the public at this meeting than I heard the council meeting in January.

I don't know if the public's sitting there spending a little more time doing the math, spending more time thinking about it.

So I think that's something the council should be aware of.

That skepticism for implementing this plan is very, very high, even if the public agrees with most parts of the plan.

So this is this is this is a strategy just lays out what the needs as we currently calculate them, what the residents would like to have, and what and financial anal analysis needs to happen to see whether we can achieve those those criteria.

Uh, it is really not the PRC's job to figure out how to finance this.

This is council's job.

Um, I think it's for us to tell council what we have for the community wants, and whether we think there are strategies here to bring us to that.

Um I'll just say that we we had a really good conversation today, which we usually do.

Um, I I really like um Commissioner Summers' ideas about how to judge uh need, and that should have been the beginning of the conversation, not the end of the organization in in terms of the the two, three four-year process that we've been on.

So to me, it just reinforces the importance of the meeting next year when we talk about what has gone on and what you know, like I said, this is a work in progress.

Maybe maybe the three acres per 1000 residents per planning area.

Maybe we should just give up on that because it couldn't it arouse anger in in areas where obviously we're never we'll never achieve that, and we'll achieve that almost nowhere.

So I interrupted you.

No, you didn't.

I was about to interrupt you.

Um so I agree that this is gonna be an evergreen document, and we'll have opportunities to adjust it, and maybe the three acres, you know, thing gets modified in the future.

I think it does have usefulness, but again, for driving urgency.

Um again, I want to reiterate them.

I'm not talking about a financial analysis.

I'm talking about framing realities because we have a whole set of ambitions that are outlined, and we've got a community that says, I don't really see it, I don't see it coming together.

And um, I'm talking about putting some kind of no, no, this really can happen.

This can happen now.

This can happen if these assumptions occur, you know, some something that um gives the community confidence that the path forward isn't a whole basket of aspirational possibilities with you know questionable uh implementation.

In order to take it out of kind of a dollar and sense realm, could you deal with that as like emergency plan?

Like if we can't what to do with and I'm not suggesting we put a child or that we would all over capital to sell them, um, but the there needs to be a strong message that um confidence in implementation has to be buttressed through some additional future kinds of planning mechanisms.

I think we've really heard that and we can communicate that to council.

Okay, good.

You get to make the publisher I don't see it as population, but um I I think we're still with what uh Chair Mitchler was suggesting around uh the two statements.

Um being to look at ways to prioritize um park development um in underserved areas, taking into consideration reliance on school fields, and the second to um look at uh making more immediate improvements uh to benefit all parks uh with an emphasis on um trees and yeah, yeah.

I mean I I like that.

Well, I think so.

If I was going to look at um reserved, I would also want to take into account the 10 minute walking radius because I think that's strong planning and it helps with accountability if you can map it and you can map that.

I mean, that could be a further definition of under underserved.

I'm yeah with that.

But so are we recommending or queuing up items for council discussion?

Is that what we think our motion wants to be?

I guess I was just envisioning this as you know, we're moving it forward, and here are two things in addition to this that's we hope can be we hope can be considered um you know in conjunction with that.

I mean, that's my thought.

I agree with that, but it strengthens the motion not to have a long laundry list of ideas because those will ideas we've discussed will go to council anyway.

Not to interrupt commissioner summer if you were continuing as you said teeing up issues for council to discuss.

I thought of something else, but it why don't you finish?

Well, I I mean we can't do anything but make recommendation, and we're not the policy makers in mid city, and somebody is our policy that that we see we we're looking to them to consider.

Um you know what it means to be underserved.

What what the level of service is at the planning area level.

And I think personally that what the top actions would be to address the underserved study areas, planning areas.

And I in my mind those are projects because we need to get something moving toilet.

Um yeah, I mean, they have to be deliverable because once you have bonds, you deliver, like think about the school districts, you know, they have to deliver those projects.

And I think council knows that.

I mean, yeah, well, they do, but I mean, we don't that will probably come in June when they put together whatever is the resolution that will go with this uh with the ballot measure.

What where I'm coming from is from the point of view of the PRC, we want to be sure that there's the top, I'm saying 10, but whatever, top eight things to deal with underserved areas.

That's kind of I think we need to make if if we feel that way collectively.

I'm just suggesting something that I do feel that really do want to see in that measure.

I guess it doesn't really have anything to do with the strategic plan, but it is it is a element of what you could do in a strategic plan.

It's a useful way to queue up things is to put it in your policy plan.

I mean, just uh more on my but you know, background of bond measures too.

You know, it's first of all, I I don't think this one is gonna be all parks in a rock, it's gonna be other city stuff too.

And then they go, you know, they they use consultants and they do surveys and they see what sells, and it may not be the highest price.

Yeah, I mean, they need to they need to get the bond passed, and so they're gonna figure out the the things that are most desirable that are gonna get votes.

I mean, I think that's just a natural part of putting a bond measure right together.

So I mean, and it might it might who knows which who we get to they appointed us to do this, so what I was imagining was that we were allowed to say what we think.

Well, I think we are.

I mean, that's uh you know, I mean, that's there's 52 actions and there's time horizons on them, and I mean what what would you be doing differently?

Could I could I make a suggestion?

I don't know.

Um I I hear you're not suggesting that right now we come up with the top lens.

You're you're wanting to to to ask council to come up with the top lens as part of them adopting this plan.

Um and I'm I'm not sure whether they how far down that path they will feel that they are able to do, able to go, but I do think that what we will do, and this is I think part of what your statement one was um chair uh Mitchers around how to prioritize these underserved areas is for us as staff to give these are the things that are in the plan right now that speak to that, and um and does council agree that you know those are things that we should you know work on at the soonest, you know, uh opportunity.

I I don't know that they are gonna say these are the first things that any available money is gonna go to.

Um but I feel like I can communicate that we as staff can communicate that.

Um there's a very rich story here around the intense desire for a paradigm shift and for the community to really feel confident that the plan isn't just a piece of paper, it it's gonna result in in real change.

Um and um I think that that we can't incorporate into that first statement that that means identifying some specific actions for council's consideration um to prioritize.

Um and I think that that is softer than what you're saying, but more due to the what you're saying, and then the other thing I heard is that you had a third thing that you would like council to do, which is discuss a different um level of service at the planning area, and so that that I think is up for for you guys to decide if the majority of you wants that, and then I think we're there.

And so that I think is up for for you guys to decide if the majority of you wants that, and then I think we're there.

I guess I'm I hear it.

I'm reticent to know.

I mean, I'm I'm sort of okay with the acres per thousand.

I mean, I couldn't you're okay with three at the planning area.

Whatever it is, I mean, whatever, whatever it is.

Well, I mean, as I mentioned, staff does not really view that three acres as a standard by planning area.

We view that as the citywide standard.

So I guess the question is do we just keep that as a goal to work towards for the planning area, or do you want to not just say it's it's not very realistic, but to say, and this is therefore what we will gear towards.

And I'm hearing Commissioner Davis say you want to keep the pedal on the middle.

You want to you want to continue to keep the pressure towards that that urgency.

And I'm and I'm hearing something completely different from the city level, certainly at the city level.

Um certainly, yes.

No, no, every I think everyone's on the same page.

I mean, I just to me it's it's a way of it's a way of identifying what your underserved areas are.

I mean, that's a metric that that's been used for years and years to identify that and absent that.

I'd you know, I don't know.

I mean, I'm open to changing it, but well, but again, we're we're suggesting that the council consider, we're not proposing anything.

Sure, okay.

But I mean, so you would would you be saying you know, to consider metrics other than three acres per thousand to identify as identification for underserved?

Well, at the planning area.

At the planning area level.

It's really just a definition.

And I was suggesting it wasn't even it was only part of the definition for what was underserved.

So um I because it sounds like it's already kind of being used, but I'm not sure it's in the plan kind of at the policy level, and I feel uncomfortable with not being clear about that because all of us are walking around saying underserved, and yet maybe they really aren't.

If I may, um and I'm hearing you on this, and and we recognize the um I'm gonna call it the formula that you put together to develop what would be considered underserved.

I think that is something that we can run with and incorporate and um put it up front, what underserved means in relation to this document, and then further strengthening um our fabulous appendix G that talks about each of the planning areas and further identifying which of those are again vulnerable by uh potential loss of school site or um and blanking on the third transportation.

Transportation barriers, thank you, which I think is already uh partially noted.

Um, but I I hear you with the uh definition and maybe clearly defining it early on.

That is something we can do without needing to incorporate it into a recommendation.

I don't feel like you need council direction first of what happens.

Yeah, I think it's pretty reasonable, and um we are I think are um um on board with the idea of creating that definition so it's more clear what exactly that means when it's stated throughout the plan.

So I guess that's you know you're clear on what that means?

Is that what you said?

Yeah, yeah, I just go back to my note of the this plus this plus this, and then it's under served for a 2000 resident area to say that it was underserved for 15,000 elements.

I think even the planning areas questionable.

So for our point of view, what do we need council for action on before they I mean like is there anything that the council need to give staff direction before the hope and goal is that when this comes to the council in May that they'll be adopting the plan.

Um they may make some feedback that we might need to tweak in a very very final document that gets posted, but um we're looking for us to get to that adoption phase and not looking necessarily for additional direction from city council um as mentioned.

Well, I I think what happens in between is you're you're saying this is what's important to us, and we want council to cons to consider it, and then we as staff figure out how to bring that forward to council.

I mean, I've been pretty straightforward with you of what I think we can incorporate and what I don't think we can.

And I I think we can incorporate and you can have it as part of your motion for sure, and and um is around looking at ways to prioritize um park expansion in the underserved areas with a definition of underserved that includes um not only acres per thousand, but also um the dependence on school school fields and the walk, the access by walking, and also to look at ways to make immediate improvements that benefit all parks is uh with an emphasis on tree planting.

So I I feel like if you make that motion, we will bring not just take council talk about this, but we will bring in the plan uh the uh accomplishment of of those two interests of the commission.

So I for one am comfortable with what Ms.

Ronberg said right now, it's not quite the wording that that you have, but what you said right now, I'm comfortable.

Okay, are you able to place but would you be willing to turn now on the spot work with our wording and then we can talk about it?

We couldn't tape record what you should um let's change acquisition and improvement.

I would say to the expansion of parks to under surveyors of the city, taking account um uh dependence on school fields and walking access, walking and biking access, 10 minutes walking access, 10 minutes, yeah, 10 minute walking, 10 minute walk.

10 minute walk re is like I think walking distance, yeah.

Yeah, is it clear that we're still looking at the three acres per thousand, or are we?

Yeah, should we almost feel like we're saying that with the right I mean maybe that should be the first thing.

Oh, yes, taking an account in addition to acres per not three, but acres per thousand.

We're looking at sure whatever in addition, right?

Looking at acres per thousand, yep.

Um, and then the second is um look for uh not look for identify opportunities to make immediate improvements to benefit all parks with an emphasis on planting trees.

That work.

So instead of to also look at ways, maybe just say incorporating into the plans.

Okay, and can we change planting trees to plant retreats?

Yeah, do you want to limit it to just trees or is it more than trees?

I was about to suggest we really talked about trees and natives before.

So with an emphasis on natives, not just trees though, right?

Landscape.

And landscaping, yeah, sure.

Thank you.

Okay, so it's planting trees and um landscaping with an emphasis on native species to trees and landscaping.

Can I say species?

Is that a plant?

Native plants will do okay.

Is that apply trees?

The tree of plants.

I mean, to people who don't think about it all the time.

It's really just funding to staff.

Is this good enough?

Does this give you good direction?

Okay, that looks good right there.

And natives.

I can't I can't accept that.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Natives has a completely, you know, potentially different meetings.

So native plantings.

So the second line after the word plan.

Put a comma and get rid of and five community.

Capitalized plan on the second line, maybe.

Yeah.

And maybe comma after city, maybe on the third line.

We can do agreement.

That kind of tweaking.

Thank you, Ellis.

Yes, and this is not, it's not easy to have like three people barking at you.

Yeah.

Not I mean not barking.

Um making suggestions to you while you're typing in real time.

So thank you.

All right, can you guys live with that?

I can I would I would have loved to tweak the emphasis on planting founded trees and landscaping with an emphasis on native plants.

Just not really elegant.

If you uh okay.

That would imply that everything would be native.

Um I don't know that we can say that.

No.

Um need to how about can we use focus?

Yeah, with a focus on native plantings.

Or uh how about just the native panning plantings to the greatest extent possible?

Emphasis on planting canopy trees and landscaping.

Planting native canopy trees and landscaping.

Or commensurate with the biodiversity.

So increasing.

Renee, I'm gonna ask you one question on after immediate.

Yeah.

Do you want something in there about low cost or low budget just to get the idea that you know let's let's I mean you think that's it's okay.

Like, I think I that's I can depend on staff to try to make it low budget.

All right, to be honest, I just don't want it to be another one of you know, because there's already 15 immediate things, and I don't want this to be sort of categorized with all that other stuff.

Oh, do you think we need to clarify immediate?

I don't know.

Because versus the plan language is zero to two or three.

I don't know.

Zero to two is a pretty immediate for us or time.

We are to inter amongst our government regular responsibilities as well.

Um actually the question is identifying opportunities is one thing, implementing them is another if we really want to be paranoid about this.

Yeah, identify and implement.

There we go.

Yeah, and then can we add at the end consistent with the biodiversity and urban um forestry plan?

Very nice.

How about and then also just to sort of identify opportunities and implement immediate improvements?

No, no, okay.

Near term improvements.

Well, I don't know if you implement opportunities, right?

I mean, that's not a really important thing.

Yeah, identify opportunities, yeah, and implement near-term improvements to near term improvements to benefit law parts.

I'll take that once like it works within it too.

So take out to make immediate improvements, paradigm shifts.

No, that uh yeah, yeah.

There we go.

Yeah, it's a paradigm shift.

So would you entertain expansion of parks and open space?

Recognizing that some of our opportunities may be in trails, it may be in corridor linkages, it may not be a convention, you know, this notion of work conventional.

Of course, long park.

Yeah, parks and open space.

Okay, I'm done.

But that matter also one more open space.

Benefit all parks and open space.

You just mean all parks.

The second to last line.

So I'm fine with the benefit all residents rather than to benefit all parks.

Okay.

Parks don't come to meetings.

Yeah, make it resonance.

Break scorpions here.

Find this very hard to write by the case.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

So what's next?

So I think I'm sorry.

Now we've messed it up.

It does indeed go.

Because now we say identify opportunities and implement near-turn improvements to benefit all residents.

Well, I mean, I can think of millions of opportunities to benefit residents that truly have nothing to do with trees.

So let's go back to parts in open space.

Okay.

Why don't we just stop?

Do you want to do city wide after that?

No, let's just take out two benefits.

I feel like we've done some really great words, I think, right now.

And I think that you've taken it pretty far.

And this is where I go, oh man, we can edit this to death.

But um I think at this moment, if this is something we are comfortable with, uh the next step would be to have a motion on the floor in order for us to carry forward.

Take out benefits at all.

What was that?

Was that just improvements to park and open space?

Just stop improvements to parks and open space.

We're gonna have the system.

No, uh to benefits all parks and nothing's just as well.

There's no problem with that.

Yeah, the point we could do this for another hour.

I mean, it's what we do well.

I'm gonna second what's on the screen.

Okay, okay.

So and I've I've I've made the motion and it's been second.

So we have a motion by Commissioner Bryant.

We've lost the screen earlier.

Sorry.

Um second by Commissioner Summer.

Um is there any other discussion before we we take a vote?

Right.

Yeah, this is Commissioner Bryan's.

Yes, the send a message.

Yeah, yes, Davis, yep, and summer.

Yes.

Okay, thank you all for a very robust discussion.

Um we topped the November discussions.

Um this is where I leave you, and we will have a changeover as staff right now before we find to your next item.

That's what I don't think.

Thank you for thanks for being all the time.

Oh, that would be great.

Yeah, and I will be sitting here with you because now it's important.

I'm here to found me.

Thank you, Audrey.

Oh, yeah, I'm like my first fine.

Thank you, Paulin.

Thank you.

Well, yeah, I mean it's really okay.

Thanks for Bill.

Thank you.

Okay, Alison, are we ready?

Um just get them a presentation.

There we go.

Okay, um, we are now gonna move on to item 5.2, uh, which is public safety building project 20-49.

And um again, the process on this is we'll have a staff report.

Uh we'll have PRC questions, um, public comment, uh, then PRC discussion and uh motion and a vote.

And I believe that we have um Naveen Gobind um from the city who will be leading our staff report.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Naveen Govern, and I'm a senior project manager with Public Works.

With me today, I have David Printy, principal project manager with Public Work as well.

And I believe we have Russell Hansen, the urban forestry manager on the call.

And we are here to present an overview of the new public safety building project, its impact on Hill Creek Street, and its mitigation measures as a part of this project.

The current police and fire building is on Thousand Villa Street.

The site is located between Shoreline and Franklin, East West, and then north south is Evelyn and Villa.

The existing building sits on a 4.3 acre site.

The building is about 44,000 square feet.

And it houses fire and police operation along with dispatch center and emergency operation center.

The building was designed and built prior to the service essential service seismic act of 1986.

That means it does not meet current seismic requirements and also for the use and fire programming needs.

Hence the city council approved the design construction of the new public safety building, which is going to be built at the current site on the same site.

So the site plan that you see on the screen was approved by city council in December of 2023.

Some of the key features of the site includes public safety building, a three-story building, which will be about 75,000 square feet along Villa Street.

There will be surface parking for both staff and the public.

And also there'll be a three-story parking garage, and the garage will have enclosed uh shooting range on the third floor.

Currently, the project only includes the shell, which is the walls and the roof.

The interior will be built out at the later point when funding is available.

And also there'll be a remnant parcel of a 0.6 acres that could be used for city in the future.

One of the main goals of the project is to uh keep the current building in operation and have minimal um instruction to the current operation.

So the project will be built in multiple phases.

Phase one would include the current uh site demolition, that's uh the public parking and uh also site grading and removal of trees.

Um demolition, we'll uh build the three-story public safety building.

And once the building is completed, the staff will relocate.

And once the building is a fully operational, we'll move on to the second phase where we're gonna demolish the existing building and construct uh surface parking.

Following that will be phase three, where we're gonna build a three-story parking garage.

And uh construction timeline, we are hoping to start construction end of this year.

That's going to be the demolition phase, and then uh we are looking at completing uh public safety building summer of 2029, and the entire project will be completed 2031.

So the design team has made every effort uh to save the trees for this project for the construction of this project.

As you can see, this is the existing site, and the dash red line is uh the building.

And if I switch over to the proposed site plan, you could see majority of the trees are within the building footprint and within the driveway to the facilities.

Um we will be removing our 42 history trees, uh, 34 non-heritage trees.

Every effort has been made to save uh trees, like I mentioned before.

So we'll be saving 20 heritage trees and 10 non-hitrich trees.

Some of the selected redwood trees would be used for um constructing of benches along Villa and possibly some interior furnishing.

The proposed tree planting um, sorry, the the tree species selected for this project is from tree list and that's supposed to biodiversity and urban forest.

The project incorporates a selection of semi-native trees and native trees.

Semi-native trees are species that are not originally local from this area, but from a nearby region or with a similar climate zone.

The project supposed to decide um sorry, um, this approach um um is the reason we have native and semi-native trees, it's um because the project has water use goals, mature height, and also wanted to minimize the future maintenance demands.

So the total proposed trees are 118 that would include 84 mitigation trees.

Uh among all the trees, there are native trees, um, which is the western red bird tree, and then also it incorporates about 30 oak trees.

So staff is uh requesting a recommendation um uh to forward a recommendation to the city council to approve the mitigation of the 42 trees at the ratio of two is to one with the planting of 84 trees on the project site, and that concludes the presentation.

We have questions or comments.

Thank you.

Um questions from the commission.

I have one question.

Um of the neighbors uh pointed out in in a public comment to the committee that some of the trees proposed to be taken out are actually um just in the open parking area right now.

And uh why are those trees being taken out?

It's a little difficult to see on this graphic.

But um why why would those trees be taken out now?

Sure.

So um David Printy, uh principal project manager of the public works.

Um so obviously, as you can see, a number of the trees are are very clearly in the path of the new construction and/or dry vials, but there are other trees that um are also uh at varying elevations that are far different than the final elevations uh required by the the final design.

So um in many cases they are in some of them, those that are familiar with the site, there's a fair number amount of elevation differences, and there's lower areas and higher areas, and so um where uh some of those areas you're referring to, those trees are at an elevation that is not supported by the the final design of the project.

So that's the primary explanation for so in the in the diagram.

The green trees are the ones to be preserved, and the red and yellow ones are the ones to be removed.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um I had a question about why there was no dry aisle connecting to Evelyn.

There was mention of an easement, a utility easement, but I was sort of in passing, and I was just wondering is there not an option to run the parking garage to Evelyn versus as opposed to Franklin?

Um the long-term plans for Evelyn are in flux, and so um in earlier versions of this uh project, there was actually an Evelyn overpass being put in, which kind of precluded that we felt that the long-term planning for this project probably should focus on other acts as well.

Thank you.

Right.

What's the intent for that?

Uh the intent is to leave it available for future councils to determine its use.

It's not part of this project in the sense that we don't have a scoped plan for the site.

We're preserving it for future use, leaving that actually to uh council.

Yeah, I would look at those heritage trees, which are some of the you know most magnificent trees on the site as being very vulnerable without some uh tree advocates.

Um where are the what stage of design is this?

Um you want to go to your kind of rough schedule?

Yeah, sure.

Um so kind of we are um almost um um the completion of uh construction documents for just the demolition package.

So um we apply to the council in June.

So upon council approval, we're gonna go out for a bit and then we're gonna add a contract for Soviet targeting to start demolition end of this year.

Yes.

Was that architect provided with any of the biodiversity draft plans, heritage tree uh city priorities?

Um it doesn't look to me like this site plan, particularly that significant redwood growth near Oaks Creed.

Like there was any attempt uh even consider that as being important.

I could speak to the the nature of this project, and as Naveen walked through the phasing, um both the program for the future needs of the site of the facility, the police facility, um led us to really one conclusion that the only developable part of the site was the frontage along Villa.

And there wasn't uh much opportunity to develop elsewhere while maintaining operations of the rest of the facility.

I think it's important to point out there is we're gonna be building for two plus years while PD operates on the back half or back two thirds, I should say, of this parcel, and um they have nowhere else to operate out of.

So we have to we have to develop the the front edge along Villa and we did preserve a number of the heritage trees along the Oak Street end uh to the maximum extent possible.

Um, obviously there's issues with building a building of this size and complexity and maintaining tree health.

That's going to be a familiar challenge for the ones we are saving.

Um but um there is very little margin of error in terms of locating this new building and navigating around the existing trees, unfortunately.

But go ahead.

Other questions?

I do alter the building form.

Commissioner Sylvester.

I have a handful.

Um why were semi-native trees chosen instead of trees that are uh more native, um, such as the ones listed in the North excuse me, North Bay Shore Precise Plan that had an excellent list of mainly native plant uh native trees that would serve as an excellent benchmark.

Um I'm gonna uh defer to Russell to speak to the species selection because that's not my my wheelhouse.

Um Russell, are you available to speak on the matter?

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Um, you know, again, as with any of our planting plans, um, it's kind of a negotiation, I will say, in terms of where we are actually going to be able to plant the trees.

And so Naveen, can you pull up the replant plan?

So if we look at the replant plan that's up on the screen currently, you can see that there's a lot of instances here where some of these are loaded located up against buildings, they're directly adjacent to hardscape, whether that be sidewalks, walkways, buildings, etc.

And so it's really that kind of balance of trying to find a species that will work um for the location, as well as balancing kind of what we're trying to do with natives.

Um, we did our best in some of these cases to get some natives back in here.

Um, but a lot of our larger oak trees, etc.

Um, while they will um I'll say fit in a little five by five cutout, um, it's just not really setting them up for long ster long-term sustainability or survivability.

Um, and so you know, we did take a look at that north base.

Um, unfortunately, in some of the cases, that stuff as we get out into North Space Shore and a little further out into the HOZ for our burrowing owls, etc., we end up with a lot shorter and smaller plants as well.

And so, you know, we're still trying to maximize canopy, yet minimize it because that also impacts the root system, etc.

And so, you know, again, we're just trying to do our best to find those in the in the case of these other ones that are non-native, we're calling semi-native.

Um, what we're trying to do is kind of match up um with what would be considered natives.

Um, they are not native.

I don't want to misrepresent that, but in the case of the Loris Saratogas, um, the Loris Nobelis, um, you know, I'll say semi-related um to our native umbellalaria, um, our California Bay tree.

Um not a close relative, um, but ultimately offers a lot of the same benefits, has a similar look, has the same evergreen appearance, but ultimately just the size is more manageable for the locations that we're trying to use.

Um, similar with the Arbutus, um, the Arbutus Marina that we're recommended, those are a little bit more closely related to some of our natives, the manzanitas um and so forth.

Um, but again, they provide benefit, they provide habitat, they provide food source.

Those are all the things that when we talk about our biodiversity plan, et cetera, those are the things that we're trying to accomplish with our tree species as well.

And so, you know, I guess that's where I'll stop.

And if you want more clarification, I'm happy to provide it.

Um I'm not an expert on those trees well enough to know if they provide the same sort of biodiversity benefits as the native adjuncts.

Um they provide the same amount of habitat, the same amount of food for our species.

I don't know the answer to that, but that's a concern I have.

Okay.

Um, another question I have the report mentions that some trees are being removed.

Um a few trees are being removed, I don't know if it meant for construction staging or to help with the construction.

Can you point out which trees on the other plant are being removed to help with the construction itself?

So the ones uh that fall into that category, and there's only a couple of them.

They probably are near the park, which is parking garage, just south of that.

Um, once that phase is under construction, all the rest of the site's going to be built up and in an operation.

So that really doesn't leave the contractor very much space to work.

And so um we pulled away a few trees from that area.

I think there's one heritage tree and a few non-heritage.

Um that kind of white area, if you will, just south of the parking garage is is where that is occurring.

Oh, okay, thank you.

Um, I think that's the extent of my questions for now.

Thank you.

I I actually had an additional question for Russell.

Russell, when I was when I was um standing on Franklin trying to figure out where one could put uh large canopy canopy trees.

Basically, there's a lot of Franklin Street that doesn't have any street trees.

And have you considered that as a side Palo Alto right now is planting oak trees as street trees, and apparently they're being very successful at it.

So have you considered oak trees as street trees on that part of Franklin?

So ultimately, um, I would say yes, tangentially, or kind of as a bigger part of the entire scope, as you can see from the diagram, we are actually trying to replant um along that frontage with our street trees or otherwise, as it's currently called out, they're called out for this Loris Saratogas.

Um, and again, now I'll just say that that's a judgment call kind of on my part, simply because um I have I know it takes a while, um, a long time for these oaks to get large.

Um, but ultimately um, you know, they just the amount of root areas, rootable soil volume, et cetera, that are available to them are going to present challenges to where they may not thrive as well as a more moderately sized tree.

Um, the other issue that I'm kind of dealing with currently, um, I think we may have talked about it in some of the other um meetings, um, but ultimately we have a pest that has moved into the Bay Area from Southern California called the invasive shot hole borer.

Um, unfortunately, um, it has moved from San Jose through Santa Clara to Sunnyvale.

We fear it is present in Mountain View currently, and we just haven't identified it.

So we're actually going to begin a trapping program, hopefully in the next six months this summer.

Um, we hope to have traps in place and be able to kind of start identifying if that pest is actually in our area.

And the concern is is that Coast Live Oaks as well as Quercus Lobata, our valley oaks in particular, are reproductive hosts for that pest.

And so they kind of amplify when that pest shows up.

It's really difficult to treat to control or otherwise because they produce frequently the pest likes them so much, they produce generation after generation after generation, and they just really amplify that population to where it spreads to all of our other trees.

And so while I'm interested in continuing to plant oaks, we just got um or we're working on confirmation to take in almost another 80 or so from the Google tree farm as a part of that mitigation.

Um that we're going to be planting them.

Um I'm just trying to be more um, I'll say careful about how we do it because I don't want trees that ultimately in a park strip or otherwise are stressed out that then attract that pest and act as an amplifier or otherwise.

And so I'm trying to find locations to plant our oaks that are just a little bit more suitable that are going to make them thrive better and give them better protection against this pest.

Thanks.

Great.

Is the sidewalk along Franklin getting replaced as part of this project?

Or is it keeping the current sidewalk?

We have PC.

And so as part of that, is it getting what will be the sidewalk width?

And are you adding new tree cutouts?

Yeah, I mean, as you can see, if you go back to the demo plan, we're adding tree wells along Franklin compared to the original plan.

There are almost no trees on Franklin, and we're adding all the ones without color, those are all new.

Right.

And so you're adding new the whole new sidewalk, new tree cutouts.

So I'm assuming your detail include you know root barriers and sufficient root space space for roots to grow.

Have you explored permeable pavement at the tree well in the tree areas?

Um that has not been part of our standard detail for for cities or city sidewalks.

And so is that an option at all in your mind?

Or I'd have to defer to the experts on that.

That's not an area that I'm prepared to.

Okay.

Promise at this point.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the cushion?

So I'm just gonna ask one and I sort of know the answer, but this is largely for members of the public.

Um if uh someone could confirm uh this is unlike our when we rule on uh tree appeals, um where we have a say in which trees are actually taken out.

Um my understanding that it's not the PRC's purview to weigh in on the removal of the trees.

It it is limited to the mitigation uh plan.

So I just wanted to get someone to confirm that.

Just because our we did, I think get an email or two discussing hey, we shouldn't be taking out these trees.

And I just want it to be clear to the public that that's not correct.

That is the PRC's charge tonight, is to focus on the mitigation that is within your your viewing scope.

Thank you.

Okay, um we will turn it over to um public comment.

Is there anyone in the room for Spawn who would like to comment on this?

We have two online.

Uh three online.

So Adam?

Okay, first we have Bruce.

Sure.

Bruce, thank you for hanging in there.

Oh, sure.

Well, I was eating dinner midway, so got something done.

Hope you're all eating dinner there.

Yes.

Um, yeah, Bruce England speaking again for um Mountain Coalition for Sustainable Planning.

So okay, the devils in the details in this clearly.

However, a lot of people in the public, including part of our organization, we're very concerned about the number of heritage trees that are being cut down all over the city.

And a big thing that happens, Russell knows this for sure, is that um developers and homeowners come to the city and they say, well, you know, and they have these rationales for this is why we have to remove all these heritage trees.

The concern is if in our public projects like a public safety building, we're doing the same thing.

We're just taking out heritage trees, and people see that developers see that, and they go, Well, this don't tell us not to do it.

You're doing it with your public safety building in elsewhere.

So it puts the onus on um those who are working on this project who really try to, I don't know, push the envelope and figure out how to do this in a way where heritage trees are preserved, and the ones that are planted are fully native, not uh anything like like near native or anything like that.

There are opportunities, there could be opportunities to build the building more tall and then preserve some of the perimeter space, but that's a redesign thing.

But the heritage trees that you say, if you could even put signage on them, you could make it a public education experience where people go like say a pioneer park, where a lot of the trees there have signs on them, so you can read about the trees and the rock garden and and so on.

So that's public education experience there.

This is another public space, not a park, but people walk through there and walk past it.

So I would encourage you to rethink what you're gonna do with this.

I think Mary Dadio's gonna speak too, and I like some of the suggestions that she's made, so you'll hear from her, I think.

Thank you.

Thanks, Bruce.

Okay, no, we do have Mary next.

Hi Mary, hope you're probably rough night for you if you're not feeling well.

Hi, um, I just want to comment.

Um first of all, um, this campus is surely within the state mandated distance of mass transit, such that high density housing is going to be all around it, yet the structures are gonna have relatively few stories.

There's also a parking structure and two parking lots.

So um a higher density building and higher density parking would have saved quite a few trees.

And also after listening to the last topic, um, it would have also created new parkland in the central planning area, which is deficit of you know, it's low on park space.

So um it sounds like it's too late to do anything about this design for this project, but I hope city staff.

Um if there are any new city buildings coming along, um, is thinking about how to get higher density so we can save valuable land.

Um the second comment is that the most used replacement tree, the cherry laurel.

Um there are 38 of them in in the replacement tree list.

So that's nearly one third of all the replacement trees.

Most websites say it gets to 10 feet tall by six feet wide.

10 feet tall by six feet wide.

This species is usually used for hedges.

There um the one valley oak that's being removed when it's mature would provide nearly twice as much canopy as all 38 of those cherry laurels combined.

There's only one single native replacement species, and it's a small species, the red bun.

So with the exception of the maple, all the trees, even the oak are relatively narrow.

So the replacement trees um I believe should be include way more native species, more large trees, and no head shrubs.

Um certainly some parking lot four could spare some space to create larger planting space for large trees, not just tiny tree wells.

Um there are techniques to create more root space, um, such as are covered in the, I think in the Mountain View Tree Technical Manual.

And they should be incorporated um in all the sidewalk areas.

Um if you need to use small trees, um, there are many native trees that stay under 20 feet tall.

Mantanitas, toyons, um there's a native prunus instead of using us um foreign prunus.

And the other thing I'll say about the prune is it's the 38 that those cherry laurels, sorry, medium water plant.

I don't know why we'd use any medium water plant on this property.

Um, if the project's gonna unfold in stages, I suggest only the necessary trees be removed for each phase rather than bulldozing them all at once, the way Google did.

And um, I think you need a better term instead of semi-native, which is confusing, drought tolerant or climate appropriate would be a much better choice.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mary.

Okay, next we have Rashmi.

Hi, Roshmi.

Oh, sorry, I was having trouble with the muting.

Can you hear me?

Yep.

Great.

Um, well, I would like to say um, I echo everything that Mary said just said.

Um, and uh more generally, I'd like to just express my frustration with the dichotomy of what we have here and what we've been talking about with these parks parks and rec plan and more um importantly, the biodiversity and urban forestry plan, which we spent hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees on, hundreds of hours of staff time and communities time.

Um, and here we have a city project.

The city is in control of every aspect of its project.

And in the end, we're cutting down 42 heritage trees, and we're replacing it with out of the 118 trees or whatever was coded, with only nine um native trees.

And the other trees labeled semi-native, as Mary said, or there's nothing native about them.

They're just drought tolerant or um similar climate.

Um so I it just it it really reflects poorly on a hope that the biodiversity and urban forestry plan is actually going to do what it claims to do if we have a project here that isn't doing anything that is kind of outlined in that plan.

Any of the intentions there are kind of left by the wayside when it comes to the details, like Bruce said, the the details of this project.

Um so I I guess I don't know what's too late and what's not too late, um, but I I would agree with Mary about it only cutting down the trees um that need to be cut down and and and phasing that.

Um that way, if there are changes to the project, but there probably will be.

We don't even have funding for the for building the parking structure as it's seed.

It's just gonna be the shell.

And it's someday, maybe 20 years from now, it'll be the whole bill, it'll be built out.

And at that point, we could have provided so much benefit to the community keeping those trees in the ground.

So just I guess like Mary said, for future projects, keep in mind um what's going on with the public is seeing and investing in these plans and staff and everybody's investing in this plants, and um, you know, we we really would like to see um that though that coming to fruition and not this type of dichotomy between the actual projects that are happening and what the city keeps claiming that it wants and its vision and its goals.

Um so yeah, just the extreme frustration in um kind of the two different topics that we've been talking about today and how they ultimately don't align.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rashmi.

And yep, April Hi, thank you.

I also like Rashmi Wanda explain express frustration.

And um, starting with the heritage and mature trees, these are critical infrastructure and real physical assets.

They provide cooling services like cooling shades, stormwater benefits, and they're already delivering value today.

We already understand how to treat infrastructure that's important like this, like take something like a street light, it's an asset because it also provides a service, lighting safety, visibility.

We account for its installation, its maintenance, replacement, and we don't remove it casually, only if there's a clear reason.

Trees are doing the same thing, they're providing services, just different ones.

Um main difference is once you move remove a mature tree, you don't get that value back for decades.

It takes that long to grow to maturity.

And then, you know, that's not even taking into account the real costs as well.

Removal, replacement, long-term establishment, removing a mature tree can range from hundreds to thousands of dollars per tree.

You can find this in um information in different cities, they've already costed this out.

Um, and it's significantly more for larger or heritage trees.

Um, then there's replacement.

Planting and establishing a new tree is also on the order of a few thousand dollars.

And that also doesn't account for the decades it takes to regain the same canopy and function.

So we're paying to remove assets that are already working and then waiting decades to get that value back.

And that doesn't add up to me.

Um so I want to, you know, I want to put the question out there like were these full lifecycle costs actually considered?

Are we actually doing an economic analysis of this as well?

Um, and if tree removal isn't being addressed here, then where is it being addressed in the city?

Because I haven't seen that yet.

Um, I also want to briefly talk to native species and with a very start with a very basic question.

Why are we consistently choosing to plant more expensive and harder to maintain trees and plants?

And to me, that seems to be the default approach.

And this is especially difficult when we hear over and over again from staff that maintenance and maintenance is a major constraint and a reason why we're not seeing more trees, um, whether that's staff capacity skill or budget.

Um native spaces, native species have been out here a long time.

They're adapted to the soil climate, how much water is available, pests that are common here.

Um over time, they've evolved to do well in this environment through natural selection.

So why wouldn't that be the starting point for us?

If they're already adapted to our soil, why choose species that need more help to establish?

Um, if they're adapted to water conditions, why choose species that need more irrigation, etc., etc.

Um, you know, as I think Mary pointed out, only nine of 118 replacement trees are proposed to be native species.

I I think we need to do better.

Um and so you know, it raises a pretty simple question.

Why isn't native our default?

Why aren't we choosing to use NATO's more frequently?

Why are we not protecting our trees that are already established?

This is infrastructure, real assets.

Thank you.

Thank you, April.

That's it.

Okay.

So that we'll close the public comment and we'll bring it back to the commissioner.

Renita's jump and jump in.

Yes, I I um I jumped in because when I was reading uh this item, I wanted to make sure it was quite clear to me what the POC's job was.

And I actually disagree with the question that you asked about what our role here is, just to agree to the type of mitigation.

So reading the code, um what it says that uh our job is to make recommendations for appropriate mitigation for removals associated with city um capital projects.

So to me that goes beyond is it two to one or is it three to one?

To me, appropriate mitigation is also what you plant in mitigation, and so I feel complete freedom in expressing my opinion about the proposed mitigation.

So I I just wanted to make it clear that in my opinion, and we don't have a lawyer here, but I'm sure staff could always find a lawyer if necessary.

Um we can't stop the project.

We can't stop the construction of the police and fire administration and council's been agonizing about it forever.

Um but the type of mitigation that's being proposed, I am completely opposed to and um so first of all, I am intensely opposed to the use of the term semi-native trees, and I understand that staff thinks it's makes sense to use it, but looking at the trees and the tree list, there's the nine uh there's the nine native trees, and then there's like 30 oaks, and they are neither native nor approach to native, nor come anywhere near to being native, and just because they're oaks doesn't mean that this is what we should plant.

So I think using the term semi-native is kind of to be blunt, covering our nakedness.

Okay, it makes it look like we are following the biodiversity and urban forest plan, which we very enthusiastically supported and sent to council.

Uh, these are just trees.

They're just oak trees that when I did uh looked online, there were somewhere in the northeast, they were quite happy with.

But we we have a biodiversity plan, we have a strategic plan now.

And if in a in a very visible city project that's gonna cost 400 million dollars, if we can't manage to plant native trees, then we have been wasting our money and our time and the energy of our residents.

So I really reject out of hand the list of trees that has been proposed as mitigation.

And what I will say is if we are so completely covering the lot with buildings that there's no room for trees, there's a city out there and a central neighborhood out there that needs a lot of trees, and let's just plant trees all around the neighborhood, and that's part of the uh possible mitigations for taking out heritage trees.

Um planting them in the um in available planting spots close to the site, and then on the project itself, if we can find room for little shrubs, which apparently we can, we can add uh add native shrubs.

I went to um just this past week, the city of Palo Alto in Canopy held a uh held an event for their great oak count.

And they had the city arborist of Palo Alto discussing how many oak trees they're planting.

Four different species of oak trees, they're thriving, they're doing really well.

Their oak count is going up by hundreds year by year, and we have a uh stellar biodiversity and urban forest plan, and we're getting a planting list that we could have gotten 30 years ago, 40 years ago.

So the the I will talk about motions later, but this is what I had to say at this point.

Thank you.

Next, anyone go ahead.

Um, echoing a lot of what we've heard so far in the room and online, we get very very few opportunities to build new city buildings where we have full control over what we plant.

Um, so the ones we do become showcases for best practices and forestry management, including preserving heritage trees when possible and planting native species.

I mean, this site is an excellent opportunity to showcase how we can do what we say other people should do.

Um, I think it we put ourselves in jeopardy by showing other developers, well, we told you to do this, but we're going to do something else.

I think we really need to model the excellent behavior uh and also follow our own biodiversity plan um and use native species.

Um there were good examples of like Batonian and other small trees that could be used.

I think we should be looking at those and not at the list in table two.

Um I think it's just an excellent opportunity lost if we don't use our native trees, things that have a feet that make it feel and look like Mountain View instead of somewhere else.

We could even have a chance to have a little signage and explain native trees and use it as an opportunity to educate the public.

Since so many members of the public will come through the site, it's an excellent location to really really showcase the best practices and not other practices.

I think that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Which I love this graphic, you know, the preserved heritage trees are the great big green dots, you know, take out the herd trees little dots.

Um I I understand the scope of this commission.

And uh I won't support any motion because I don't think we can mitigate uh abdication of responsibility, and I think this is um and so I don't think I don't think a 5-0 message to council is what I want to see.

Um certainly trees are gonna have to come out in the on the property to to build buildings, but there are you know opportunities on the periphery where you could preserve a really magnificent grove of redwood trees, and it was just no account really.

I mean, I I find it hard to believe that the designer even appreciated that there was a heritage tree ordinance.

I guess someone had to draw the plan, so at some point they had to know what a heritage tree is, but um, I really don't think this reflects even an attempt by the city to uh develop in accordance what it with what it says its values are or what we're imposing on the residents sort of just to listen to go ahead with your conversations.

I won't I won't support any mitigation plan.

Wait and see, be open.

There could be a there could be a great plan.

Anyway, Commissioner Summer.

Sure, yeah.

Um sorry to say I'm sort of in alignment with what I'm hearing, and I don't think I could support this proposed mitigation plan.

Um look at what's being proposed, and they're gonna be a bunch of little lollipops.

And where is the canopy for on this site that is currently there?

And so that kind of goes to what was developed as part of this plan.

I mean as we're looking at this subject of canopy.

I would like to see the existing canopy and the proposed canopy at some kind of reasonable growth age and be able to compare whether we're actually you know getting light for light, because this is mitigation.

Mitigation has to provide the same functions and benefits that were being removed over time.

But so just knowing what's being proposed here.

I mean, this will not provide the functions and benefits of what is currently on the site.

Um, I don't think the the Prunus Carolina, the little basically shrub should be considered as a mitigation tree.

So that needs to go back to the drawing board completely.

And that takes out 30.

I do see why they enclose the dog training area in a screened in area, and that makes sense, but those aren't mitigation trees.

There's just no way.

And um the oak is a fast to get species, you know, plumar species, and so there is sort of a design gesture there up against the parking garage and such, but I don't see that as mitigation tree.

It doesn't have any canopy or spread, it's not anything like a native oak.

Um I mean, I the plant palette is just all wrong, and especially given our um biodiversity and urban forest plan, um, which calls for you know high native component.

Um that you know, we're gonna need to come back with something that my um opinion is more native-oriented, and I would like to see at least 20% oaks.

I I do appreciate what um staff had said about the emerging pest, and um you know, to that uh the reason I asked about the Franklin frontage and whether the sidewalk is being replaced, because we should be able when with the sidewalk replacement, we should be able to create a good environment for a tree to grow in, whether that means you know setting it back or providing an appropriate um underground environment.

Sometimes you the sidewalk uh could can lever at a can we were where it's passing a tree so that the roots aren't um you know roots have more space to grow.

There's lots of techniques and details that people are using now to plant oak trees along streets.

Um to that, uh I think that we should be doing more street trees along Evelyn because that area is very light, even though we're retaining those large trees that are there, you could build easily or at least appears from the plan that would be in built.

Um the parking lots are a place where you want to create shade.

Drivers really appreciate shade, but we're this plan puts little teeny lollipops there.

Don't public safety officers deserve some shade on their cars.

Um I guess the real question in my mind, since we're all sort of in agreement is what what are what happens next?

Do we um decline to approve the mitigation plan?

Is that what we could do?

So that are you done?

Because I haven't yes um so just my my thoughts on this.

Um is I concur I'm not as expert on on trees as as some of the others, but I you know, one of the first things I did was cross-check the list against um you know our biodiversity tree list, and and then also we were sent a link.

So I looked at the shoreline uh planting plan, and you know, this is a different, slightly different environment, but you know, I was disappointed that there wasn't more crossover um between trees on those lists and and and these trees.

Um I don't have the verbiage in front of me, but I I it would be my understanding that our mitigation um purview isn't just a rubber stamp a mitigation plan that we we get to have a say in what the mitigation plan is to me.

That seems reasonable.

I but we don't have a legal person here.

But I mean that seems reasonable.

I think we've tweaked mitigation plans in the past.

I don't know if I can't remember for projects of this size, and then also you know, just a statement to you know, anybody um you know, I think it's a frustration uh for not only probably all of us, I'm speaking for us, but for past PRC people that you know, we we spend hours on on tree appeals advocating to save one tree, and then we you know, we read about projects where hundreds of trees are are taken out, and it's it's it's frustrating, and and um you know, I don't know what can be done about that, other than you know, people need to get to counsel early on when these plants are are being made and really make their voices heard there.

And then we you know, we read about projects where hundreds of trees are taken out, and it's it's it's frustrating, and and um you know, I don't know what can be done about that, other than you know, people need to get to council early on when these plans are being made and really make their voices heard there.

Um but getting to this one, you know, I guess I would have a question for in terms of responding to your question on on sort of where we're at.

Um, whether we try to do something today, or whether we uh request that this comes back to us with some stipulation with some stipulations on what we'd like to see differently, yeah.

Um and I I also believe that that we're not necessarily limited to two for one or on this location, and and we could you know, if we were to say three for one, and some of them over here, and some of them are gonna be in at other recommended places in this city.

I I think that's reasonable.

So I guess one of the questions I would have is what's is what is the time urgency on this?

It doesn't seem that we're gonna be planting tomorrow, but if somebody can answer that question for me.

If I can add some context, I appreciate the comments.

Um Ed Orango, I'm the assistant public works director and city engineer, and um I'm hearing a consistent theme.

So um I want to provide some context on timing.

I think we do have time.

Um, not much, as you heard um staff talk about the phasing of the project.

Um the first phase is sort of this demolition, site clearing, and then the second phase is the actual main building structure.

Um but I do think we have an opportunity to um work with um the city arborist on identifying a plant pallet um based on the comments that we heard tonight, um, which was a consistent theme of how can we be more consistent with um the biodiversity plan and other planned pallets that we have throughout the city that came out across loud and clear.

Um so we're happy to do that.

We can go back and can evaluate based on size, location, um, and available areas on the site, and then maybe start looking at other off-site locations near um the site um and then come back.

Um so I'm I'd propose that the commission um I provide that direction.

Um I feel comfortable doing that.

I think we have time to unless I'm seeing staff saying that you know we can't make the timing work.

I believe we can make the timing work.

One of the critical items that we're really trying to again move forward is this first phase.

Um as we um go into construction at the end of this year for this first phase, getting um to council for approval of those plans um at the same time coupling that with uh approval of removal of the heritage trees and the mitigation plan really is uh the critical component.

So when we go to council, it's gonna be multiple um action items.

And so, but again, we want to be sure that the commission is comfortable with the plant palette.

We're hearing this again, um, species types, consistency with plans, we'll work with the um architect.

Um more importantly, we'll work with the city harbors again to come back to the PRC and then um and have you review uh uh the mitigation plan.

Thank you, Shana.

So I would feel more comfortable if we agreed on clearer guidelines as to canopy, as to how many natives, and because this cannot be a game of bringing us something and see if it sticks and it doesn't stick, so bringing us something else and see if it sticks, and then it's and there's just no time anymore.

We just need to do it.

So I'd like our we seem to be very much in agreement to come up with some curriculistics of what the palette should look like besides look at the North Bay Shore, which is a wonderful, which is which is a wonderful list, but I'd like us to be more specific about like 75% of natives, for example, which is a number used in all kinds of of uh contexts.

Replacement of canopy because lollipops, even if extremely natives won't get us anywhere.

Well, um someone with experience as a landscape architect.

I don't think that more than 50 percent native trees is going to work out in this setting.

There's a lot of pavement and a lot of underground utilities and things like that.

Can I just respond to that?

I I before you you go too far in that direction.

I think replacement of canopy cannot happen on this on this site.

I think we're going to have to like I think you said it, or I said it in another of the commissioners said it.

That area doesn't have many trees, neither on Franklin itself, nor on Villa or Villa on Evelyn.

There's a lot of room there for uh for additional trees, and if if the site is too covered in buildings, then you know there won't be the wonderful grove where I stood in on the weekend and listened to birds singing, but at least it'll be trees for people to walk.

So I I wouldn't we don't have to, we can at least say a preponderance of trees or something of the sort.

It doesn't have to be a number, but it should be clear that we're not expecting one or two.

So um that makes sense what you said about replacement of canopy because looking at the plan with both in the phasing and the way the our you know parking structure is kind of a new element.

Um but we could look at enhancing these trees on street frontages as being part of it, really taking a serious look at getting a consistent street tree pattern along there, and I definitely will like the idea of um you know taking that biodiversity and urban forest plan look at it in terms of what's being introduced to the site that definitely airing on the site of native where possible.

So our master tree list has not yet been, I mean has not yet been updated.

The SFEI took some of the really unnecessary trees out, but that but the North Bacial tree lists are what will work, and like I said, Palo Alto is planting oaks, and they're thriving, they're very proud of themselves.

And for once I think, yes, they're doing something wrong.

And when does Palo Alto ever stop being proud of however they absolutely have I was surprised to agree with them?

They're doing it.

So can we mention canopy and a preponderance of natives and looking at the immediate neighborhood as criteria that we would be looking for?

So I'm saying heads nod.

Do you want to?

I mean seems like this is something we should have a motion and a vote as opposed to just sort of saying come back.

So do you want to start taking a shot at a motion?

So direct staff to come back to the PRC with a um with new mitigation measures.

With a revised mitigation plan, thank you.

Um focusing on canopy replacement um preponderance of native trees and placement of mitigation of as many mitigation trees as needed in the immediate vicinity of the project.

This now we need to make some comment about the the number of trees.

So why don't we start with the usual two to one replacement for heritage trees and one-to-one replacement for non-heritage trees and see where that leads us to?

Right, because the little Brunus Carolinas are all close together, they're not going to be able to get the quantum on here to be site if we switch to a larger specimen.

So that might pause it, cause the look of off-site a little bit.

Yeah.

If there's too much building to be able to replace the canopy, then it needs to be nearby, but the planting still needs to be native.

And especially if they're not trees, it should be very simple on location to do native.

We can't ask other people to do natives when we're not doing it ourselves on a 400 million dollar project, right?

So going to that, we're seeing direct staff to on a chemical replacement with the proponents of native trees and a mitigation of trees in the neighborhood and a meeting.

So I'm just trying to think that maybe that's a little, I mean, the concept is is it's not enough room realistically on the site that we should be open to going off site.

The language should be qualified to reflect.

Can I make a suggestion?

So uh second line with proponents of native trees added two to one replacement for heritage trees and one to one for non-heritage trees, comma exploring locating before you can get there.

It's okay to put a period and start a new sentence too.

I think sometimes we go too long.

So after the one to one for non-heritage trees periods, or start your new placement of mitigation trees within the neighborhood and immediate areas if adequate on site space is not available.

Yes, yes, yes, thank you.

That's part of what I had wanted to propose.

Yes.

Not available for all for all trees from yeah, yep.

So it is a second.

Okay, no.

Uh Michelle Brian.

Yes, Sylvester Mitchler.

Yes.

Davis.

I guess I'll have to um say no to when it comes back because if I say no, this is it misinterpreted the original.

Uh yeah, I still think it's objectionable.

No, no, it's not two to one replacement isn't counting for the value of the significant trees.

No, it's I got my go-tested, and that doesn't matter.

And some okay.

Yes.

All right, so we have a four to one and four to one tested.

And you've said you've said what you need up.

Okay.

That closes that item.

And um, thank you for your assistance and willingness to come back on the different.

Um moving to item number six, um, commission staff announcements.

Um, I'll turn it over to Christine.

Okay, I'll try to keep this brief and fast.

Um, we just started spring summer registration.

Just time out real quick.

Thank you.

Thank you guys very much for so we started spring and summer registration on Saturday, March 7th.

Um, I feel like a broken record every year.

I'm like, oh my god, it's a record breaking year.

It was another record-breaking year though.

Um the birthday we had over 5,800 enrollments within two minutes, our recreation program.

So Deer Hollow Farm specifically for the 10 or 8 said 10-year-olds and our club recamp full.

Two minutes.

Two minutes.

I myself did not get into one of them.

Um I got how did this happen?

Um, and as of this morning, um, since March 7th, we have garnered an additional thousand enrollments.

Um, we have a variety of swim lessons that are full.

Um, but one thing that is wonderful is we still do have space in a lot of our summer camps.

Um, and we still have space in in swim lessons, which is great.

Um, but we are very excited about this the success.

Um, that first day was easily a thousand fifteen hundred more than the year before on day one.

Um, and I I bring this to the testament at the staff of planning a really great summer um for our community.

Um speaking of Deer Hollow Farm, um, we have our first spring tour event on Saturday, March 28th and 10 to 2.

It's a great fundraising opportunity to raise funds for the livestock program.

Um Colin wrote this, and I think it's funny at this hour, so I'm gonna say it.

He says this is no April Fool's joke.

Music on Castro returns on April 1st.

I wasn't gonna say that, but it's supposed to be night, and so I thought why not?

Um, so that comes back.

That is a weekly uh music program on Castro on the 200 block from five to six forty-five, creates nice ambiance downtown.

Um, we also have on April 8th a Magical Bridge performance series returning um back here at the end back of the park.

Um, and we just have a lot of stuff going on in the recreation world um preparing for spring and summer.

And I'll turn it over to assistant community services director.

Brenda Sylvia.

Um the mural painting has started on the rank store maintenance building, so that's part of the artwork is part of the project that began.

So we're looking forward to seeing that.

And then um per your interest and request in taking a look at park designs and reviewing park designs after parks have been constructed and opened.

Um, I put together an internal staff team, and we've been working on developing like a proposal.

Um, I'll be bringing that to.

We need to shift some things around.

Um, so I had intended to bring that to in April.

I'm not sure if that's gonna happen now, but um, we have pretty much finalized a proposal and we'll bring it to um for discussion.

So that's good.

Yeah, it's it's been kind of a um a real collaborative effort with um some park staff, some recreation staff.

So all of us kind of got together, and uh we can flesh that with you very soon.

Thank you.

That's great follow-up.

That's something we want.

Yeah.

Any commissioner announcements?

Thanks, uh, Brenda, to your staff for dumping off three yards of bulge and very close apart and spent Saturday spreading it.

Right.

Which is really great.

Okay.

If there's nothing further, uh, we will adjourn.

Our next meeting is on Wednesday, April 8th, and we will see what that agenda brings us.

I believe that we have two heritage treaty appeals at a minimum, and there may be other other items.

Right.